Jordan Speith - Weak Era

[SwooshLT]

[quote name='Forged4ever' timestamp='1437485180' post='11991472']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1437460024' post='11990544']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437459563' post='11990536']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1437459011' post='11990522']
Oh sweet! Another hot "back in my day,.." take.

Its impossible to compare the present and unknown future to a known and recorded past. At least without overlaying your own bias on either or both eras you're judging. You've done well there. So props.
[/quote]

The present as you call it has already taken place. Speith won 2 consecutive majors and nearly a third. The competition he faced is also known and their records (and some go back 20 years) are there to inspect.
[/quote]
The ones that go back 20years are not part of The Spieth, McilRoy, D. Johnson, Day etc era. Thats just beginning. You could have written this same thread last year and asked "Whos going to challenge Rory in this weak era damnit?" And that would have been silly today.
[/quote]This is exactly true-

"This" era did not start in April of 2015, LMAO-

While Tiger's star may have faded, "This" era is no stronger or weaker than the vast majority down through the years.

The one thing regarding Jordan Speith that I have filed away and has influenced me since I added him to my standard Majors' slelections that I had picked since 2010(Ernie, Adam & Luke) was based on the feedback of a Fellow Walker Cupper Teammate of Jordan's who, as a Mid-Am and one of the Team's oldest members, was more or less tasked with the responsibility of being Jordan's Mentor & Big Bro if you will, as Jordan was 17 months younger than anyone on the team-

A few of his observations-

Jordan was mature beyond his years.

As the youngest Team Member, he was well aware that he would be the target of the usual light hearted banter and "hazing" that went on(let's please not forget that these are Golfers so it's not like the activities that you would have participated in as a freshman on my college football team ), and he took it very well and won every Team Member over-

Jordan was the finest Player on a Talent Laden Team-

This Team, led by two Bama AA's, ranked #'s 1 & 3 in the Nation, also had AA's in every Non-Mid Am spot-

Jordan didn't bother with the rest of the Team-

He played the two Bama bois in money practice rounds and beat them like drums in a MP format.

And just to prove it was no fluke, he beat the #1 ranked boi again, worse than the first match-

This Mid-Am, himself a storied Player, who has played with the best Ams in the world for the last 12-14 years, said that while there were some great Players no doubt, Jordan Speith was in a class by himself.

He stated that barring any unforeseen injuries, Jordan would be good for AT LEAST 5-6 Majors-

This Gent is not prone to hyperbale, and in fact is very soft spoken and I said "Wait a minute, how many," and he softly repeated, "5-6, easy."

I then added Jordan to my Majors' threesome list.

Regarding Jordan's Length, and this is what I find most amusing because when Jordan has to have it, and THIS my Friends is a signature of the Great Ones, he wills himself and produces a 300yd + drive.

He has played the longest courses on the face of this earth and laid waste to whomever stood on the tee with him.

He drives it far enough to beat your A**, Nomatter What your name is-

This is something else that the vast vast majority of golfers, both on this board and across the globe just do not get, though this is why 98%+ cannot break 100 playin it down and out-

It ain't about the drives-

It ain't about the approach irons-

And no, it ain't about the putting-

And it sure the hell ain't about the field or the era, LMAO

It's about what's in that 5-5.5" space between Jordan Speith's ears-

He believes in his mind that he is Great, and he is definitely Better than anyone he stands on a tee with, and he knows that if he is coming down 18 FW with a chance to get it done, He will indeed hit the shots needed to emerge victorious.

THAT mindset Gents, transcends fields, decades & eras.

His is the mind set of the Greatest Champions-

Walter Hagen

Ben Hogan

Jack Nicklaus

Tiger Woods

You could take those four Men, drop them in ANY era, and they would emerge unscathed & Victorious, as a Champion ALWAYS does-

I believe that Jordan Speith has that mind set-

Will he end up being spoken of in the same breath as those four Champions?

Only time will tell-

However Please, take the discussion up a level or two and choose something different than "weak era" or "doesn't hit it long enough," LMAO

Don't forget, the same thing was said about Ben Hogan-

However he possessed the single greatest trait that a Champion can possess-

He was blind and deaf to any thoughts, views or opinions that were written or spoken by anyone but himself-

Jordan possesses this same trait-

Well, KYMs, as usual, excellent posts Bro!!

Please pardon the typos, as I'll clean em up, but you know what time it is, lol

I hope that you're well and it's all Fairways & Greens for Ya

As Always,

My Best,
Richard
[/quote]


Excellent post as usual Richard.....and to add more....all players are,longer than previous eras......YJS has averaged 290 since joins the tour.....I'm sure Rory doesn't avg 320......Greg Norman in the steel shafted days was considered long and averaged 276.....we have our math skewed. ...290 is greater than 276 and while courses are getting longer, averaging 290 is playable on ANY normal Tour layout.

Plus what Richard said about the mind....steel trap!

[RobS14526]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1437480473' post='11991072']
[quote name='Bear Trader' timestamp='1437477949' post='11990952']
The very fact a guy like Sergio who was destroyed by Tiger for 15years and can now compete and be on the top leaderboard in this era shows golf is weak. If there was no Tiger, els would have won 3 in a year. DiMarco would have won 2 in a year, phil would have done 3 in a year and so on. Now it's just the same nobodies who would have had no chance back in 2000.
[/quote]

Lol this is a ridiculous point given that Sergio actually won a lot more in Tiger's era than he does now!

1 Pga tour win post 2009 vs 7 pre 2009
3 Euro wins vs 8 pre 2009.
[/quote]

And to add to that, Sergio has 20 top 10's in majors. He's been consistently on these leaderboards with or without Tiger.

[SeanPMcD]

Doesn't do anything particularly well? Have you seen him putt? Yeah he had a few miscues yesterday, but what golfer doesn't. You can't make all the shots all the time. The fact that he had 5 three putts, a four putt, a chip in that hit the middle of the stick and finished 1 shot out of the playoff to win his third straight major speaks volumes about him as a golfer. And I am not a Spieth fan! But to see what he did was amazing.

I even played against him in junior tournaments/high school in Dallas! He was destroying us when he was 14.

Come on man, get out of the days of Arnie and Jack.

You could argue that the competition is stiffer top to bottom for Spieth than Tiger.

[Forged4ever]

[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437463066' post='11990592']
[quote name='FargoRC' timestamp='1437462269' post='11990582']
What is the biggest equalizer in golf? Putting.

What Spieth is doing would translate in any era. You make a lot of putts and you are going to be bringing home some hardware or finishing high on the leaderboard. This isn't exactly something new.
[/quote]

True and his accuracy is good too. But Tiger Woods 10 years ago would have crushed this era and that includes Speith.
[/quote]First, Hats Off on the thread NB

While I obviously have a different opinion, I greatly respect that you would post a somewhat controversial topic and opinion, knowing the keyboard kommandos await, lol, with their belittling comments & posts, while the vast majority would never post such a thread, regardless of topic or opinion.

Very Well Played

Regarding my response to your above post, I respectfully disagree.

Yes, Tiger would have beaten Jordan more than he would best Tiger, but "crush?!?"

No Way!!

No more than Jack "crushed" Tom Watson-

As was pointed out above me, the Jordan/Tom Watson comparison is excellent, in my opinion.

And yes, I believe that Tom Watson, regardless of the era, would be a Champion.

Players like Tom Watson and Jordan Speith rarely, if ever, get "crushed."

By Anyone-

They are Champions

Champions may get beaten, which amounts to a number on a score board or on a card, such as happened to Jordan in this Open, as in his mind, he just ran out of holes, however they never get "crushed," because that only happens to the mentally weak!

Stay Well My Friend

Fairways & Greens 4ever,
Richard

[jeschrich]

I've never understood trying to compare different era's to provide a strong/weak argument. Is the PGA tour not the pinnacle of golf? Is it not the highest tier attainable by a golf professional? Record books show wins and losses. A depth of field argument spanning multiple decades is so subjective. Back in my day we had to walk 15 miles up hill both ways, you kids these days have it so easy.

While I appreciate everyone's opinion.....this one made me scratch my head.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='SeanPMcD' timestamp='1437491246' post='11992142']
Doesn't do anything particularly well? Have you seen him putt? Yeah he had a few miscues yesterday, but what golfer doesn't. You can't make all the shots all the time. The fact that he had 5 three putts, a four putt, a chip in that hit the middle of the stick and finished 1 shot out of the playoff to win his third straight major speaks volumes about him as a golfer. And I am not a Spieth fan! But to see what he did was amazing.

I even played against him in junior tournaments/high school in Dallas! He was destroying us when he was 14.

Come on man, get out of the days of Arnie and Jack.

[b]You could argue that the competition is stiffer top to bottom for Spieth than Tiger.[/b]
[/quote]

Here it is. 2005 vs today>


Ranking Player Country Average Points Events
1 (2) Tiger Woods USA 17.16 755.20 44
2 (1) Vijay Singh Fij 9.78 615.93 63
3 (5) Phil Mickelson USA 8.14 366.25 45
4 (4) Retief Goosen SAf 8.10 429.35 53
5 (3) Ernie Els SAf 8.03 377.43 47
6 (7) Sergio Garcia Spn 7.23 332.41 46
7 (21) Jim Furyk USA 5.80 237.80 41
8 (81) Colin Montgomerie Sco 4.78 267.43 56
9 (11) Adam Scott Aus 4.68 234.19 50
10 (15) Chris DiMarco USA 4.58 233.81 51
11 (43) David Howell Eng 4.49 233.53 52
12 (30) Angel Cabrera Arg 4.44 186.63 42
13 (26) Luke Donald Eng 4.41 233.93 53
14 (18) Kenny Perry USA 4.35 200.05 46
15 (20) David Toms USA 4.30 210.79 49
16 (89) Michael Campbell NZl 4.19 221.98 53
17 (6) Padraig Harrington Ire 4.08 208.06 51
18 (14) Darren Clarke NIr 4.03 201.63 50
19 (9) Davis Love-III USA 3.89 186.52 48
20 (74) Tim Clark SAf 3.69 213.83 58



Today>



http://www.owgr.com/ranking

[Barnacle]

Did you even look at player's stats before posting this dribble? Spieth is the greatest player in the game right now and the stats show it. He'll be world number 1 before the season is out. I'm sorry hes not smacking 330 yard drives 30 yards into the forest every other hole, and his average is 'only' 291. He can still open it up and get the distance when he needs. I'm sorry he isn't fist pumping his way into victory every week. He's the best putter on tour and one of the best approach iron players as well as an excellent wedge player. Leave it up to a golfwrxer to still think distance matters. Sorry but if someone like Spieth and Johnson (who is really short) can win at Augusta when it was said you need to be a long bomber to win there can do exactly that without being uber long, then it pretty much shows how over rated distance is.

I believe it was Rory who said that its anyone's tournament every week when the players tee it up on Thursday, the level of skill and determination is that high. Sure we expect certain players to win more often but I think Zach just proved that its anyone's game.

[DTXgolfer12]

[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437458337' post='11990500']
This is not a knock on Jordan Speith who is a talented young player, but the fact that a 22 year old who doesn't do anything incredibly, and is 30 yards shorter that Rory, almost won 3 majors in a row suggests something is amiss. At first I was confused and then I looked at the leader board this weekend and also thought about the broader competition he competes against. What I saw was guys like Mickelson who even though a great player is now closer to the Champions Tour than his prime, a prime that Tiger competed against and dominated. The same can be said for Furyk. Then there is Harrington who had a purple patch several years ago but is the definition of a player grinding the most out of his talent, and at 43 he still challenged the leader board. Also we saw the perennial "too-mentally-weak-to-win" nearly men in Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia (the old version), Ricky Fowler and Jason Day. The guys who make it look like a deep, talented field but are really just helping tv ratings whilst commentators try to sell you on their talent. The best of the rest was Adam Scott, Tiger Woods -2.0, who is should be an ultimate gauge of the strength of the tour. The only thing he had in common with Tiger was his swing and only won a major once the older talent declined. And bringing up the rear are the solid tour pros like Leishman, Rose, Westhouse-zen, Donald, Streb, Horschel and Zack Johnson who ultimately won.

Where have all the great players gone? Where are all the prime Palmer's, Casper's, Faldo's, Player's, Langer's, Trevino's, Snead's, Mickelson's, Furyk's, Singh' etc guys who were talented and mentally tough as nails. All I hear is that "the fields are so deep now". Sure, but where are the super talented guys at the very top that can crush it in Majors. The old guys from Tiger's era are still challenging the young 'stars' who can't get it done. That opened the door for a guy like Speith to come along and play consistent golf and show a bit of composure. And if thats all it takes to almost win 3 majors in a row then its clear there is a lot of snake oil being sold at the moment. Its like going to a restaurant with 200 'good' dishes on the menu and nothing truly delicious.

This is undoubtedly a weak era and I hope it doesn't last too long.
[/quote]


I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. I know everyone is biased towards their "era" but you sound like your being nostalgic instead of logical.

What Spieth has done is nothing short of REMARKABLE. An accomplishment that only the cream of the crop of 200 years of golf have even touched. And you're short selling it because you don't identify with the modern era.

The PGA Tour of today is far more competitive than the tour of "jacks era". Back then there was a handful of 10 dominant players that could win. Today ANYONE can win. These guys are bigger strong and smarter. They're bred to make birdies. Half the guys in the 60's didn't even practice regularly. Practice wasn't even really invented until Hogan set the standard. Today's players are practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 12. Not to mention the courses of today are played in conditions that players in the 60's never saw. They didn't have $100,000 lawn mowers that could trim fairways to run at green speeds. They didn't have million dollar sub air ventilation systems that could dry out a green complex to run at 14 stimp. Just look at how much putting strokes have changed. I'm sorry but it's a different game and to say that players today don't have the balls is one of the most ignorant things i've heard on this forum - which is quite a statement. The game is in a fantastic place. It's riddled with young stars with crazy talent. It's a shame you don't see it cuz you're missing some incredible golf.

[Arpeggi]

Did you really say Furyk? LOL

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437493910' post='11992420']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437458337' post='11990500']
This is not a knock on Jordan Speith who is a talented young player, but the fact that a 22 year old who doesn't do anything incredibly, and is 30 yards shorter that Rory, almost won 3 majors in a row suggests something is amiss. At first I was confused and then I looked at the leader board this weekend and also thought about the broader competition he competes against. What I saw was guys like Mickelson who even though a great player is now closer to the Champions Tour than his prime, a prime that Tiger competed against and dominated. The same can be said for Furyk. Then there is Harrington who had a purple patch several years ago but is the definition of a player grinding the most out of his talent, and at 43 he still challenged the leader board. Also we saw the perennial "too-mentally-weak-to-win" nearly men in Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia (the old version), Ricky Fowler and Jason Day. The guys who make it look like a deep, talented field but are really just helping tv ratings whilst commentators try to sell you on their talent. The best of the rest was Adam Scott, Tiger Woods -2.0, who is should be an ultimate gauge of the strength of the tour. The only thing he had in common with Tiger was his swing and only won a major once the older talent declined. And bringing up the rear are the solid tour pros like Leishman, Rose, Westhouse-zen, Donald, Streb, Horschel and Zack Johnson who ultimately won.

Where have all the great players gone? Where are all the prime Palmer's, Casper's, Faldo's, Player's, Langer's, Trevino's, Snead's, Mickelson's, Furyk's, Singh' etc guys who were talented and mentally tough as nails. All I hear is that "the fields are so deep now". Sure, but where are the super talented guys at the very top that can crush it in Majors. The old guys from Tiger's era are still challenging the young 'stars' who can't get it done. That opened the door for a guy like Speith to come along and play consistent golf and show a bit of composure. And if thats all it takes to almost win 3 majors in a row then its clear there is a lot of snake oil being sold at the moment. Its like going to a restaurant with 200 'good' dishes on the menu and nothing truly delicious.

This is undoubtedly a weak era and I hope it doesn't last too long.
[/quote]


I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. I know everyone is biased towards their "era" but you sound like your being nostalgic instead of logical.

What Spieth has done is nothing short of REMARKABLE. An accomplishment that only the cream of the crop of 200 years of golf have even touched. And you're short selling it because you don't identify with the modern era.

The PGA Tour of today is far more competitive than the tour of "jacks era". Back then there was a handful of 10 dominant players that could win. Today ANYONE can win. These guys are bigger strong and smarter. They're bred to make birdies. Half the guys in the 60's didn't even practice regularly. Practice wasn't even really invented until Hogan set the standard. Today's players are practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 12. Not to mention the courses of today are played in conditions that players in the 60's never saw. They didn't have $100,000 lawn mowers that could trim fairways to run at green speeds. They didn't have million dollar sub air ventilation systems that could dry out a green complex to run at 14 stimp. Just look at how much putting strokes have changed. I'm sorry but it's a different game and to say that players today don't have the balls is one of the most ignorant things i've heard on this forum - which is quite a statement. The game is in a fantastic place. It's riddled with young stars with crazy talent. It's a shame you don't see it cuz you're missing some incredible golf.
[/quote]

While I pretty much agree with the overall premise of your post I don't get where the course condition argument comes into play. Playing in the perfect conditions of today (fairways lending themselves to 50+ yards of roll and greens that roll like tile) actually favors the old(er) guys. How many times has it been said that Tiger is a much worse putter on slow greens. There is much less left to the luck of the bounce on todays greens. (maybe excluding the afternoons on poa).

I do agree the game is in great shape right now, just look at the leaderboards of the last two majors. The talent out there is incredible. However I also still believe that when there is that much equal talent, it is hard for many of them to learn how to finish off a tournament, especially a major. That brings back that circular argment that has gone on forever in the Tiger/Jack GOAT threads about whether it is better or tougher to have fewer guys who win the big ones multiple times, or the depth where it is seemingly a different winner each week. A question with no real answer.

[angler99]

[quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437493910' post='11992420']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437458337' post='11990500']
This is not a knock on Jordan Speith who is a talented young player, but the fact that a 22 year old who doesn't do anything incredibly, and is 30 yards shorter that Rory, almost won 3 majors in a row suggests something is amiss. At first I was confused and then I looked at the leader board this weekend and also thought about the broader competition he competes against. What I saw was guys like Mickelson who even though a great player is now closer to the Champions Tour than his prime, a prime that Tiger competed against and dominated. The same can be said for Furyk. Then there is Harrington who had a purple patch several years ago but is the definition of a player grinding the most out of his talent, and at 43 he still challenged the leader board. Also we saw the perennial "too-mentally-weak-to-win" nearly men in Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia (the old version), Ricky Fowler and Jason Day. The guys who make it look like a deep, talented field but are really just helping tv ratings whilst commentators try to sell you on their talent. The best of the rest was Adam Scott, Tiger Woods -2.0, who is should be an ultimate gauge of the strength of the tour. The only thing he had in common with Tiger was his swing and only won a major once the older talent declined. And bringing up the rear are the solid tour pros like Leishman, Rose, Westhouse-zen, Donald, Streb, Horschel and Zack Johnson who ultimately won.

Where have all the great players gone? Where are all the prime Palmer's, Casper's, Faldo's, Player's, Langer's, Trevino's, Snead's, Mickelson's, Furyk's, Singh' etc guys who were talented and mentally tough as nails. All I hear is that "the fields are so deep now". Sure, but where are the super talented guys at the very top that can crush it in Majors. The old guys from Tiger's era are still challenging the young 'stars' who can't get it done. That opened the door for a guy like Speith to come along and play consistent golf and show a bit of composure. And if thats all it takes to almost win 3 majors in a row then its clear there is a lot of snake oil being sold at the moment. Its like going to a restaurant with 200 'good' dishes on the menu and nothing truly delicious.

This is undoubtedly a weak era and I hope it doesn't last too long.
[/quote]


I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. I know everyone is biased towards their "era" but you sound like your being nostalgic instead of logical.

What Spieth has done is nothing short of REMARKABLE. An accomplishment that only the cream of the crop of 200 years of golf have even touched. And you're short selling it because you don't identify with the modern era.

The PGA Tour of today is far more competitive than the tour of "jacks era". Back then there was a handful of 10 dominant players that could win. Today ANYONE can win. These guys are bigger strong and smarter. They're bred to make birdies. Half the guys in the 60's didn't even practice regularly. Practice wasn't even really invented until Hogan set the standard. Today's players are practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 12. Not to mention the courses of today are played in conditions that players in the 60's never saw. They didn't have $100,000 lawn mowers that could trim fairways to run at green speeds. They didn't have million dollar sub air ventilation systems that could dry out a green complex to run at 14 stimp. Just look at how much putting strokes have changed. I'm sorry but it's a different game and to say that players today don't have the balls is one of the most ignorant things i've heard on this forum - which is quite a statement. The game is in a fantastic place. It's riddled with young stars with crazy talent. It's a shame you don't see it cuz you're missing some incredible golf.
[/quote]
This is truth. Hell, even when a young Tiger came on the scene, hardly any pro golfers worked out. Hal Sutton and the Walrus were still successful on the tour. Now days, every single player under 35 has been eating, breathing, and drinking golf since they were 8-12 years old. Players are insanely better now. It's harder to win consistently. Jordan has to be given a huge amount of credit for consistently beating a STRONGER field than what Jack and Tiger faced. We are witnessing the apex of golf, just like the NFL, NBA, and MLB. It's simple evolution.

[angler99]

Assuming course conditions are roughly the same as the TW dominant era, can't we put some simple math to the debate on PGA scoring averages? I realize, that might be a significant assumption about course conditions. I wonder if they are lower, higher, or about the same.

[bscinstnct]

Adam Scott was ranked 9th in 2005, today he is 11th

Sergio was 6th in 2005, today he is 10th

Furyk was 7th in 2005, today....he is 7th.

Not sure if it means the fields were stronger then, but it does not look they are any stronger now.

[psygolf]

Era schmera...he is getting knocked like Casper did during the Big 3 era. Nothing flashy, methodical...seperates himself with his short game.

[Bear Trader]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437495322' post='11992590']
Adam Scott was ranked 9th in 2005, today he is 11th

Sergio was 6th in 2005, today he is 10th

Furyk was 7th in 2005, today....he is 7th.

Not sure if it means the fields were stronger then, but it does not look they are any stronger now.
[/quote]


And when you add the fact they are much older past their prime and still in top 10 it says everything about this weak era. Lol

[DTXgolfer12]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1437494850' post='11992546']
[quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437493910' post='11992420']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437458337' post='11990500']
This is not a knock on Jordan Speith who is a talented young player, but the fact that a 22 year old who doesn't do anything incredibly, and is 30 yards shorter that Rory, almost won 3 majors in a row suggests something is amiss. At first I was confused and then I looked at the leader board this weekend and also thought about the broader competition he competes against. What I saw was guys like Mickelson who even though a great player is now closer to the Champions Tour than his prime, a prime that Tiger competed against and dominated. The same can be said for Furyk. Then there is Harrington who had a purple patch several years ago but is the definition of a player grinding the most out of his talent, and at 43 he still challenged the leader board. Also we saw the perennial "too-mentally-weak-to-win" nearly men in Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia (the old version), Ricky Fowler and Jason Day. The guys who make it look like a deep, talented field but are really just helping tv ratings whilst commentators try to sell you on their talent. The best of the rest was Adam Scott, Tiger Woods -2.0, who is should be an ultimate gauge of the strength of the tour. The only thing he had in common with Tiger was his swing and only won a major once the older talent declined. And bringing up the rear are the solid tour pros like Leishman, Rose, Westhouse-zen, Donald, Streb, Horschel and Zack Johnson who ultimately won.

Where have all the great players gone? Where are all the prime Palmer's, Casper's, Faldo's, Player's, Langer's, Trevino's, Snead's, Mickelson's, Furyk's, Singh' etc guys who were talented and mentally tough as nails. All I hear is that "the fields are so deep now". Sure, but where are the super talented guys at the very top that can crush it in Majors. The old guys from Tiger's era are still challenging the young 'stars' who can't get it done. That opened the door for a guy like Speith to come along and play consistent golf and show a bit of composure. And if thats all it takes to almost win 3 majors in a row then its clear there is a lot of snake oil being sold at the moment. Its like going to a restaurant with 200 'good' dishes on the menu and nothing truly delicious.

This is undoubtedly a weak era and I hope it doesn't last too long.
[/quote]


I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. I know everyone is biased towards their "era" but you sound like your being nostalgic instead of logical.

What Spieth has done is nothing short of REMARKABLE. An accomplishment that only the cream of the crop of 200 years of golf have even touched. And you're short selling it because you don't identify with the modern era.

The PGA Tour of today is far more competitive than the tour of "jacks era". Back then there was a handful of 10 dominant players that could win. Today ANYONE can win. These guys are bigger strong and smarter. They're bred to make birdies. Half the guys in the 60's didn't even practice regularly. Practice wasn't even really invented until Hogan set the standard. Today's players are practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 12. Not to mention the courses of today are played in conditions that players in the 60's never saw. They didn't have $100,000 lawn mowers that could trim fairways to run at green speeds. They didn't have million dollar sub air ventilation systems that could dry out a green complex to run at 14 stimp. Just look at how much putting strokes have changed. I'm sorry but it's a different game and to say that players today don't have the balls is one of the most ignorant things i've heard on this forum - which is quite a statement. The game is in a fantastic place. It's riddled with young stars with crazy talent. It's a shame you don't see it cuz you're missing some incredible golf.
[/quote]

While I pretty much agree with the overall premise of your post I don't get where the course condition argument comes into play. Playing in the perfect conditions of today (fairways lending themselves to 50+ yards of roll and greens that roll like tile) actually favors the old(er) guys. How many times has it been said that Tiger is a much worse putter on slow greens. There is much less left to the luck of the bounce on todays greens. (maybe excluding the afternoons on poa).

I do agree the game is in great shape right now, just look at the leaderboards of the last two majors. The talent out there is incredible. However I also still believe that when there is that much equal talent, it is hard for many of them to learn how to finish off a tournament, especially a major. That brings back that circular argment that has gone on forever in the Tiger/Jack GOAT threads about whether it is better or tougher to have fewer guys who win the big ones multiple times, or the depth where it is seemingly a different winner each week. A question with no real answer.
[/quote]

The courses are longer today. The greens are faster. The rough is grown thicker. That makes the course harder. Older designed courses did not have these things built in regularly as they do today.

[Bohsaucey]

Show me comparable data that makes statistical sense.

At the moment this is all just emotionally fueled garbage.

Era's cannot be compared because there are too many variables to be accounted for. Just enjoy the lovely golf, I was on the edge of my seat for the last two majors, and could watch the final round replays again.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Bohsaucey' timestamp='1437496868' post='11992734']
Show me comparable data that makes statistical sense.

At the moment this is all just emotionally fueled garbage.

Era's cannot be compared because there are too many variables to be accounted for. Just enjoy the lovely golf, I was on the edge of my seat for the last two majors, and could watch the final round replays again.
[/quote]


[color=#282828]Adam Scott was ranked 9th in 2005, today he is 11th[/color]

[color=#282828]Sergio was 6th in 2005, today he is 10th[/color]

[color=#282828]Furyk was 7th in 2005, today....he is 7th.[/color]

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437496072' post='11992648']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1437494850' post='11992546']
[quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437493910' post='11992420']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437458337' post='11990500']
This is not a knock on Jordan Speith who is a talented young player, but the fact that a 22 year old who doesn't do anything incredibly, and is 30 yards shorter that Rory, almost won 3 majors in a row suggests something is amiss. At first I was confused and then I looked at the leader board this weekend and also thought about the broader competition he competes against. What I saw was guys like Mickelson who even though a great player is now closer to the Champions Tour than his prime, a prime that Tiger competed against and dominated. The same can be said for Furyk. Then there is Harrington who had a purple patch several years ago but is the definition of a player grinding the most out of his talent, and at 43 he still challenged the leader board. Also we saw the perennial "too-mentally-weak-to-win" nearly men in Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia (the old version), Ricky Fowler and Jason Day. The guys who make it look like a deep, talented field but are really just helping tv ratings whilst commentators try to sell you on their talent. The best of the rest was Adam Scott, Tiger Woods -2.0, who is should be an ultimate gauge of the strength of the tour. The only thing he had in common with Tiger was his swing and only won a major once the older talent declined. And bringing up the rear are the solid tour pros like Leishman, Rose, Westhouse-zen, Donald, Streb, Horschel and Zack Johnson who ultimately won.

Where have all the great players gone? Where are all the prime Palmer's, Casper's, Faldo's, Player's, Langer's, Trevino's, Snead's, Mickelson's, Furyk's, Singh' etc guys who were talented and mentally tough as nails. All I hear is that "the fields are so deep now". Sure, but where are the super talented guys at the very top that can crush it in Majors. The old guys from Tiger's era are still challenging the young 'stars' who can't get it done. That opened the door for a guy like Speith to come along and play consistent golf and show a bit of composure. And if thats all it takes to almost win 3 majors in a row then its clear there is a lot of snake oil being sold at the moment. Its like going to a restaurant with 200 'good' dishes on the menu and nothing truly delicious.

This is undoubtedly a weak era and I hope it doesn't last too long.
[/quote]


I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. I know everyone is biased towards their "era" but you sound like your being nostalgic instead of logical.

What Spieth has done is nothing short of REMARKABLE. An accomplishment that only the cream of the crop of 200 years of golf have even touched. And you're short selling it because you don't identify with the modern era.

The PGA Tour of today is far more competitive than the tour of "jacks era". Back then there was a handful of 10 dominant players that could win. Today ANYONE can win. These guys are bigger strong and smarter. They're bred to make birdies. Half the guys in the 60's didn't even practice regularly. Practice wasn't even really invented until Hogan set the standard. Today's players are practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 12. Not to mention the courses of today are played in conditions that players in the 60's never saw. They didn't have $100,000 lawn mowers that could trim fairways to run at green speeds. They didn't have million dollar sub air ventilation systems that could dry out a green complex to run at 14 stimp. Just look at how much putting strokes have changed. I'm sorry but it's a different game and to say that players today don't have the balls is one of the most ignorant things i've heard on this forum - which is quite a statement. The game is in a fantastic place. It's riddled with young stars with crazy talent. It's a shame you don't see it cuz you're missing some incredible golf.
[/quote]

While I pretty much agree with the overall premise of your post I don't get where the course condition argument comes into play. Playing in the perfect conditions of today (fairways lending themselves to 50+ yards of roll and greens that roll like tile) actually favors the old(er) guys. How many times has it been said that Tiger is a much worse putter on slow greens. There is much less left to the luck of the bounce on todays greens. (maybe excluding the afternoons on poa).

I do agree the game is in great shape right now, just look at the leaderboards of the last two majors. The talent out there is incredible. However I also still believe that when there is that much equal talent, it is hard for many of them to learn how to finish off a tournament, especially a major. That brings back that circular argment that has gone on forever in the Tiger/Jack GOAT threads about whether it is better or tougher to have fewer guys who win the big ones multiple times, or the depth where it is seemingly a different winner each week. A question with no real answer.
[/quote]

The courses are longer today. The greens are faster. The rough is grown thicker. That makes the course harder. Older designed courses did not have these things built in regularly as they do today.
[/quote]

The courses are longer, but the ball negates that. There is no way to know if the rough is thicker. The greens are faster, and also smoother, which better putters much prefer. I just don't think you can use course conditions as an argument for this generation.

[Bohsaucey]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437496959' post='11992740']
[quote name='Bohsaucey' timestamp='1437496868' post='11992734']
Show me comparable data that makes statistical sense.

At the moment this is all just emotionally fueled garbage.

Era's cannot be compared because there are too many variables to be accounted for. Just enjoy the lovely golf, I was on the edge of my seat for the last two majors, and could watch the final round replays again.
[/quote]


[color=#282828]Adam Scott was ranked 9th in 2005, today he is 11th[/color]

[color=#282828]Sergio was 6th in 2005, today he is 10th[/color]

[color=#282828]Furyk was 7th in 2005, today....he is 7th.[/color]
[/quote]

I am talking avg course lengths, wins per events, wins per course, courses played, avg course difficulties, weather impacts, avg proximity to hole, avg distance, putts per round, GIR, FWY, avg green speeds, avg rough lengths, etc. There are too many things that are actively changing year to year.


The tour maybe should adopt a players strength of schedule, and rankings should be voted on by sports writers! That works well does it not?

[KYMAR]

[quote name='tw_focus' timestamp='1437489771' post='11991938']
TW and Rors are the best players on tour, when they work out their issues (swing / injury / mental). The best will always rise to the top. Just wait a short while, TW and Rors will rise to the top again.

Agree that it does show you what a weak tour it is when Spieth is able to nearly win 3 majors in a row with boring, lackluster golf.
[/quote]

Holy hell!
Serious props to you TW_focus. I mean to come out of nowhere like that and trump all of the mind numbingly stupid posts in this thread with this gem of adoration driven delusion is HUGE! Its like a back 9 30 in a major to win.

Tiger isn't even the best professional golfer in his family right now. Its time to embrace the horror.

[Sixcat]

Didn't Spieth finish 2nd to Zach Johnson in strokes gained putting for the week at the Open Championship? That's incredible considering he had five three putts and a four putt for the week.

He hits it incredibly straight which is staring to matter more and more with fairways getting pinched to fight distance. His short game is remarkable and extremely consistent. His putting is the best in the professional game right now. Mentally, he may be the toughest we have seen since Tiger first came onto the scene.

To dismiss what Spieth is doing in any way may say more about the person carrying the viewpoint rather than Spieth himself.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Bohsaucey' timestamp='1437497800' post='11992836']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437496959' post='11992740']
[quote name='Bohsaucey' timestamp='1437496868' post='11992734']
Show me comparable data that makes statistical sense.

At the moment this is all just emotionally fueled garbage.

Era's cannot be compared because there are too many variables to be accounted for. Just enjoy the lovely golf, I was on the edge of my seat for the last two majors, and could watch the final round replays again.
[/quote]


[color=#282828]Adam Scott was ranked 9th in 2005, today he is 11th[/color]

[color=#282828]Sergio was 6th in 2005, today he is 10th[/color]

[color=#282828]Furyk was 7th in 2005, today....he is 7th.[/color]
[/quote]

I am talking avg course lengths, wins per events, wins per course, courses played, avg course difficulties, weather impacts, avg proximity to hole, avg distance, putts per round, GIR, FWY, avg green speeds, avg rough lengths, etc. There are too many things that are actively changing year to year.


The tour maybe should adopt a players strength of schedule, and rankings should be voted on by sports writers! That works well does it not?
[/quote]

I would love to see proximity to the hole with irons stats.

There was some item I saw where a guy had some data and said something like the 70th guy on tour and tons of guys hit irons as accurately as Hogan did back then.

[pinehurst]

There are more professional golfers trying to make a living at the game now than at any point in history. The number I have heard is more than 24k listed playing pros out there in the world. The game is extremely competitive with incredible talent depth. Spieth is doing something amazing and historic.

[gopherguts]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1437480473' post='11991072']
[quote name='Bear Trader' timestamp='1437477949' post='11990952']
The very fact a guy like Sergio who was destroyed by Tiger for 15years and can now compete and be on the top leaderboard in this era shows golf is weak. If there was no Tiger, els would have won 3 in a year. DiMarco would have won 2 in a year, phil would have done 3 in a year and so on. Now it's just the same nobodies who would have had no chance back in 2000.
[/quote]

Lol this is a ridiculous point given that Sergio actually won a lot more in Tiger's era than he does now!

1 Pga tour win post 2009 vs 7 pre 2009
3 Euro wins vs 8 pre 2009.
[/quote]

Some people simply refuse to let facts get in the way of their opinions,,,,,,,,,

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='Forged4ever' timestamp='1437491292' post='11992156']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437463066' post='11990592']
[quote name='FargoRC' timestamp='1437462269' post='11990582']
What is the biggest equalizer in golf? Putting.

What Spieth is doing would translate in any era. You make a lot of putts and you are going to be bringing home some hardware or finishing high on the leaderboard. This isn't exactly something new.
[/quote]

True and his accuracy is good too. But Tiger Woods 10 years ago would have crushed this era and that includes Speith.
[/quote]First, Hats Off on the thread NB

While I obviously have a different opinion, I greatly respect that you would post a somewhat controversial topic and opinion, knowing the keyboard kommandos await, lol, with their belittling comments & posts, while the vast majority would never post such a thread, regardless of topic or opinion.

Very Well Played

Regarding my response to your above post, I respectfully disagree.

Yes, Tiger would have beaten Jordan more than he would best Tiger, but "crush?!?"

No Way!!

No more than Jack "crushed" Tom Watson-

As was pointed out above me, the Jordan/Tom Watson comparison is excellent, in my opinion.

And yes, I believe that Tom Watson, regardless of the era, would be a Champion.

Players like Tom Watson and Jordan Speith rarely, if ever, get "crushed."

By Anyone-

They are Champions

Champions may get beaten, which amounts to a number on a score board or on a card, such as happened to Jordan in this Open, as in his mind, he just ran out of holes, however they never get "crushed," because that only happens to the mentally weak!

Stay Well My Friend

Fairways & Greens 4ever,
Richard
[/quote]

Diplomatic and reasonable as always - you don't want to know in what context golf and commando may sometimes intersect in my world. ;-)

When Jordan has actually played in an era and time allows us to judge the quality, talent, depth, etc. of the competition we can make judgments about whether it is "weak", so I don't think the OP has any serious basis to make the claim IMHO, other than to stir the pot a little. So he gets a little of what he is probably looking for in terms of reaction.

Zach Johnson is apparently among maybe three other golfers (TW, McIlroy, Phil) with multiple majors and 10+ wins in he past 8 or 10 years - pretty rarified air and proof of the strength of the current "era". Plenty of really good players out there.

Plenty of tough outs in golf right now.

[Bohsaucey]

Top 10's/Tournaments Played (Basic All time evaluation)

Tiger Woods- 57%
Jack Nicklaus- 48%
Rory Mcilroy- 47%
Jordan Speith- 37%
Tom Watson- 35%
Phil Mickelson- 34%
Lee Trevino- 34%
Arnold Palmer- 33%
Vijay Singh- 32%
Sergio Garcia- 31%



Players have always been in competitive eras, even the above analysis is so basic. We could do some deep digging through the PGA tour's stats, define time periods and compare everything to our hearts content.

Probably won't show any discernible difference.

[granite45]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1437481266' post='11991116']Spieth is great for golf in ways that Dustin Johnson could never be. Listen to him speak.

I just can't at people who want to make golf a glorified Long Drive competition. It's such a shame.[/quote]

Maybe, but some might say they can't stand how golf has been reduced to a simple putting contest.

[gopherguts]

[quote name='Bear Trader' timestamp='1437490930' post='11992084']
[quote name='The Pearl' timestamp='1437487433' post='11991688']
I sure do miss the days of Rocco, DiMarco, Bob May, and Shaun Micheel.
[/quote]


Those guys brought it on the final day which is not something that could be said about the chokers - like Day, Dustin and Rickie.
[/quote]



Talk about a selective memory.

Yeah, Rickie sure choked it up on the final day at the Scottish and the TPC,,,,,,

And ya know,,,,,, the older I get the further my home runs used to travel !!!

[DTXgolfer12]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1437497736' post='11992828'][quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437496072' post='11992648']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1437494850' post='11992546']
[quote name='DTXgolfer12' timestamp='1437493910' post='11992420']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437458337' post='11990500']
This is not a knock on Jordan Speith who is a talented young player, but the fact that a 22 year old who doesn't do anything incredibly, and is 30 yards shorter that Rory, almost won 3 majors in a row suggests something is amiss. At first I was confused and then I looked at the leader board this weekend and also thought about the broader competition he competes against. What I saw was guys like Mickelson who even though a great player is now closer to the Champions Tour than his prime, a prime that Tiger competed against and dominated. The same can be said for Furyk. Then there is Harrington who had a purple patch several years ago but is the definition of a player grinding the most out of his talent, and at 43 he still challenged the leader board. Also we saw the perennial "too-mentally-weak-to-win" nearly men in Dustin Johnson, Sergio Garcia (the old version), Ricky Fowler and Jason Day. The guys who make it look like a deep, talented field but are really just helping tv ratings whilst commentators try to sell you on their talent. The best of the rest was Adam Scott, Tiger Woods -2.0, who is should be an ultimate gauge of the strength of the tour. The only thing he had in common with Tiger was his swing and only won a major once the older talent declined. And bringing up the rear are the solid tour pros like Leishman, Rose, Westhouse-zen, Donald, Streb, Horschel and Zack Johnson who ultimately won.

Where have all the great players gone? Where are all the prime Palmer's, Casper's, Faldo's, Player's, Langer's, Trevino's, Snead's, Mickelson's, Furyk's, Singh' etc guys who were talented and mentally tough as nails. All I hear is that "the fields are so deep now". Sure, but where are the super talented guys at the very top that can crush it in Majors. The old guys from Tiger's era are still challenging the young 'stars' who can't get it done. That opened the door for a guy like Speith to come along and play consistent golf and show a bit of composure. And if thats all it takes to almost win 3 majors in a row then its clear there is a lot of snake oil being sold at the moment. Its like going to a restaurant with 200 'good' dishes on the menu and nothing truly delicious.

This is undoubtedly a weak era and I hope it doesn't last too long.
[/quote]


I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. I know everyone is biased towards their "era" but you sound like your being nostalgic instead of logical.

What Spieth has done is nothing short of REMARKABLE. An accomplishment that only the cream of the crop of 200 years of golf have even touched. And you're short selling it because you don't identify with the modern era.

The PGA Tour of today is far more competitive than the tour of "jacks era". Back then there was a handful of 10 dominant players that could win. Today ANYONE can win. These guys are bigger strong and smarter. They're bred to make birdies. Half the guys in the 60's didn't even practice regularly. Practice wasn't even really invented until Hogan set the standard. Today's players are practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 12. Not to mention the courses of today are played in conditions that players in the 60's never saw. They didn't have $100,000 lawn mowers that could trim fairways to run at green speeds. They didn't have million dollar sub air ventilation systems that could dry out a green complex to run at 14 stimp. Just look at how much putting strokes have changed. I'm sorry but it's a different game and to say that players today don't have the balls is one of the most ignorant things i've heard on this forum - which is quite a statement. The game is in a fantastic place. It's riddled with young stars with crazy talent. It's a shame you don't see it cuz you're missing some incredible golf.
[/quote]

While I pretty much agree with the overall premise of your post I don't get where the course condition argument comes into play. Playing in the perfect conditions of today (fairways lending themselves to 50+ yards of roll and greens that roll like tile) actually favors the old(er) guys. How many times has it been said that Tiger is a much worse putter on slow greens. There is much less left to the luck of the bounce on todays greens. (maybe excluding the afternoons on poa).

I do agree the game is in great shape right now, just look at the leaderboards of the last two majors. The talent out there is incredible. However I also still believe that when there is that much equal talent, it is hard for many of them to learn how to finish off a tournament, especially a major. That brings back that circular argment that has gone on forever in the Tiger/Jack GOAT threads about whether it is better or tougher to have fewer guys who win the big ones multiple times, or the depth where it is seemingly a different winner each week. A question with no real answer.
[/quote]

The courses are longer today. The greens are faster. The rough is grown thicker. That makes the course harder. Older designed courses did not have these things built in regularly as they do today.
[/quote]

The courses are longer, but the ball negates that. There is no way to know if the rough is thicker. The greens are faster, and also smoother, which better putters much prefer. I just don't think you can use course conditions as an argument for this generation.[/quote]

The courses then were shorter with slower greens and a ball that spins more. Short sided was no penalty the way it is now. Slow greens will always have less three putts. Those are easier conditions