Jordan Speith - Weak Era

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Bear Trader' timestamp='1437495840' post='11992626']
[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
[/quote]

Scott and Garcia are 35. Past their prime?

Nicklaus won 42 events...more than half his wins...after age 30. Not comparing them to Jack; just questioning the definition of "prime".

Trevino won all but 3 of his 29 PGA Tour wins after the age of 30.

If anything, prime may last longer now, as there is a greater emphasis on fitness.

[Rock Chalk Jayhawk]

Jeez. So much hatred of Spieth by the Rory acolytes.

[Bohsaucey]

[quote name='Bohsaucey' timestamp='1437499337' post='11993010']
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.
[/quote]


Wins/Events Played

Jack Nicklaus - 12.2%
Tiger Woods - 24.4%
Rory Mcilroy - 11.6 %


All stats come from whatever the PGA Tour tracks, may not include worldwide victories.

If you compare top 10's and wins, Tiger > Jack, but again that is such a small weak comparison.

May be fun to compile a bunch of information to statistically say who was the best, in the toughest era, but you would still have to throw out relevant immeasurable information.

[golfinray]

Gary Player was certainly not long. In "The big three" Plamer and Nicklaus both outdrove him miles. He won 9 majors.

Trevino talked about Nicklaus outdriving him 30-40 yards. He won 5 majors.

Billy Casper was not long but many a pro longed for his putting ability.

Gene Littler was very short.

Seve was not long.

On the other hand Gary Woodland is long what has he won.

The shark was long - disaster after disaster.

Sam Snead was huge - never won the US Open.

On and on.

[cdnglf]

[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]

Tiger Woods was ranked #1 in 2005, today he is 258th.
QED

[Rock Chalk Jayhawk]

[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'll paraphrase...

"I'm not a hater, but I hate such and such. yada yada yada"

Newsflash: saying "I'm not X, but Y (which contradicts your statement of "I'm not X)" is a really, really bad argument.

[glk]

Athletes in all eras have gotten better. Jones played better competition than Vardon, Snead/Hogan/Nelson better than Jones, Nicklaus/Palmer/Watson better than ..., and so on and so on.
Jack himself said he figured Jones faced 10 guys that could win, Jack faced 30, and since the mid-nineties the number is more like 90. Nothing has changed, as time marches on so does it bring better athletes in greater numbers.
[indent]
In 1930, there were perhaps ten golfers, pro or amateur, who might defeat Bob Jones when everything was right for them. After my first few years as a pro, there were maybe 30 guys who could beat me if I wasn’t playing my best. If I were out there today (1996), that number would be tripled.
[/indent]

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1437500986' post='11993218']
[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]

Tiger Woods was ranked #1 in 2005, today he is 258th.
QED
[/quote]

Ha! Not bad.

Nonetheless, 3 guys remaining in the same/similar rank for 11years. One HOF, the other 2 are questionable.

[Forged4ever]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1437497856' post='11992848']
[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.
[/quote]LMAO, Bro, it's been a rough 4 days and to top it off I had a terrible dream last night and it's been a long day....

Once again You pulled me out of the doldrums and Ya made me crack up

Thank You!!

All the Best,
Richard

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Forged4ever' timestamp='1437503682' post='11993532']
[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1437497856' post='11992848']
[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.
[/quote]LMAO, Bro, it's been a rough 4 days and to top it off I had a terrible dream last night and it's been a long day....

Once again You pulled me out of the doldrums and Ya made me crack up

Thank You!!

All the Best,
Richard
[/quote]

I'm your Huckleberry

[QuigleyDU]

[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 think you make some decent points. the only issue I have is that Speith seems to just get it. It is something you cant teach and is what really separates the winners from losers.Talent only gets you so far.

[mosesgolf]

How's that go? There's one in every village.
The field is tougher than it ever has been except for the absence of Tiger Woods but throw in a Rory McElroy and I'll call.

[KYMAR]

Hit Fairway
Hit Green
Make putt


That guys bland and therefore not that good.

[bullie76]

Nothing weak about today's era. Silly topic.

[gwlee7]

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

Don't forget Rich Beem.

[RVAUSMC]

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.

[Choclab]

Know how I know you're a Tiger fanboy?...

[Bulldog]

Golf is, and will always be, not how, but how many...
Lowest score wins...PERIOD!

[PZero]

It's hard to take the OP serious when he misspelled the current Masters/US Open Champ, Players champ, and Open champs name wrong. It tells me he probably isn't paying too close attention to this era.

[widow-maker]

This is not a weak era. It's just a different era. As you change from era to era, styles change. It's more Driver-wedge-putter now because of golf ball/equipment changes. 15 under at St Andrews is a pretty good indicator that this era is plenty strong enough.

Golf hasn't really changed much as far as competition since the early 60's. There have always been lots of good players competing in these events. Every major though has the same thing happen... on Sunday afternoon, the best players for that week rise to the top, and whoever wins the tournament has to beat the best players for that week over the final 9 holes of competition. There are no weak eras. All these guys from the different eras can play. Winning a major is a huge accomplishment. Winning multiple majors takes a special player. Winning double digit majors is ridiculous.

[Mahamilto]

I simply cannot disagree more. I will grant that they players you named are all legendary, and that they would all excel in any era of golf, but the simple fact is that Tiger Woods, and nobody else, transformed golf forever. The average athletic ability of a PGA tour player in the pre-Tiger era is not even worth discussing compared to the guys on tour today. I will grant that some of the players pre-Tiger were fairly athletic, in fact, you mentioned some of the absolute best athletes in the history of the pre-Tiger era in your post. So it goes to this... if the pre-Tiger era was dominated by the best athletes, and the Tiger era was dominated by Tiger, by far the best athlete of the time, explain exactly what is going on now?

I will tell you: The average PGA golfer's athletic tier is fairly even across the board. So yes, while there are always some outliers of athleticism, the overall field went from a bunch of highly skilled golfers to a modern field of highly athletic and highly skilled golfers.

Would the legends you mentioned compete in today's game: Absolutely. Most of them had high athletic ceilings, and in today's training regimen and nutritional awareness, they would again rise to the different challenges of the modern game and be successful.

Would the legends you mentioned dominate in today's game? I'm not certain. First, its very difficult to even compare skill, let alone athleticism, of these players as courses are completely different and MUCH harder than in the Palmer etc. era. Yes, equipment and training make the course lengths more negligible, but nothing changes the fact that the PGA Tour courses began "Tiger Proofing" after he embarrassed everyone on tour for a little bit.

At the end of the day, this era seems "weak" because it is so much harder to completely dominate a more level field of players. When your legends played, half the field they went up against wouldn't even be on the web.com tour these days, it was simply a weak field.

To this, it actually should show how outstanding Jordan Speith really is. I mean come on... have you actually watched any of his rounds? He putts out of this world, he has outstanding poise and course management, and he just flat out pin-seeks with short-irons and wedges. The guy is absolutely amazing. Distance is only important if you don't have enough of it... hes got plenty of it to succeed on tour (291.1 Average). He also just so happens to be #1 on tour in both strokes gained, and birdies... Last time I checked, the guy who makes the most birdies, and limits his big numbers, typically wins...

So yes, while I don't doubt that an Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods in their prime, with today's tech and workouts would be mind-boggling good, they would also be playing week in and week out against a lot of other mind-boggling good players something only Tiger had to face later on in his career after he changed the face of golf. You talk about mental weakness? How about you focus more on the fact that there is significantly more pressure on you when you are being chased by a field of guys who are as physically able as you and can play, instead of a bunch of overweight old men who have a lot of skill. Palmer and Tiger could simply out play the majority of the field with raw ability alone... something that is impossible to do these days.

If you think that Jordan Speith isn't an exceptional golfer, who wouldn't have been exceptional in any era (assuming his play level continues as is) you are completely delusional. I'm not saying a Tiger or Arnie type wouldn't dominate today, but they certainly wouldn't dominate to the extent they did in their own respective eras.

You mention a handful of the absolute best players to ever play, but you forget that in the modern era there are simply so many more (quantity) players who are capable of winning at any given time. This just wasn't the case before Tiger. Back then you had a handful of guys who could win and the rest of the field was just happy to be there. Today, winning a PGA even means outplaying an entire field of capable individuals.

People pull this nonsense with baseball all the time with respect to pitching. They say "where are the Bob Gibsons" or Sandy Kofax... they idealize an era by keying in on the absolute best players of the day, and they say "pitching used to be sooooo much better". Newsflash... it isn't... in fact, pitching is way better today. Guys throw harder, they have specialized bullpen roles, and guys have much sharper breaking stuff. The hitting is also better, and the strikezone is smaller. Trust me when I say this... if Bob Gibson played today he wouldn't even sniff the numbers he put up. He couldn't throw at guys, he'd have to throw to a smaller zone. He'd still be Bob Gibson, he'd still be amazing, but he wouldn't be the guy you saw in his era. THE GAME HAS CHANGED.

As the courses get longer and more difficult, the exact same comparison can be applied to golf. Though I could never test this theory, I'd be willing to bet that the middle of the road pro from Palmer's era would have difficulty consistently breaking par, in their prime, on modern courses, even with modern equipment. It is just a different game.

[golfinray]

[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]
No, average wrxer - 350 into the wind!

[Shilgy]

[quote name='glk' timestamp='1437502268' post='11993384']
Athletes in all eras have gotten better. Jones played better competition than Vardon, Snead/Hogan/Nelson better than Jones, Nicklaus/Palmer/Watson better than ..., and so on and so on.
Jack himself said he figured Jones faced 10 guys that could win, Jack faced 30, and since the mid-nineties the number is more like 90. Nothing has changed, as time marches on so does it bring better athletes in greater numbers.
[indent=1]
In 1930, there were perhaps ten golfers, pro or amateur, who might defeat Bob Jones when everything was right for them. After my first few years as a pro, there were maybe 30 guys who could beat me if I wasn’t playing my best. If I were out there today (1996), that number would be tripled.[/indent]
[/quote]
And if you took that from 1996 to today there would be 150? Maybe more. Some will say the amateurs that were were in contention proves a weak field. But I don't care if you are an am or a pro just look at the scores being shot and how many were doing it. In the last 20 years there have been fewer collapses and more outright winning than any time I recall. Just look at the scores that were shot at the Open in very tough conditions. They were like the postman out there. Ya know the "neither wind nor rain... shall keep them from their great scoring rounds".

[CommerceTiger]

[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]

I'll say it. I'd love 290 off the tee consistently. I mean, what are 5 irons for anyways?

[sailfishchris]

[color=#282828][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Tiger isn't even the best professional golfer in his family right now. Its time to embrace the horror. KYMAR has my vote for comment of the year! [/background][/size][/color]

[Mahamilto]

We tried to reach Jordan Spieth for comment... but he was too busy winning... #ShooterMcGavin

[sheldonjhacker]

[Gem]

[quote name='gwlee7' timestamp='1437506519' post='11993914']
[quote name='The Pearl' timestamp='1437487433' post='11991688']
I sure do miss the days of Rocco, DiMarco, Bob May, and Shaun Micheel.
[/quote]

Don't forget Rich Beem.
[/quote]
Michael Campbell as well.

[rainkingjr]

This topic is complete nonsense.

[playa]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1437486560' post='11991608']
[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437480941' post='11991096']
[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1437479715' post='11991036']
The more capitalized a sport gets in terms of talent, the harder it will be for a handfull of people to dominate. We see less dynasties in major sports, and less individuals putting up gaudy numbers. The irony is that the obvious effects of an era being stronger get used as an argument that's its weaker
[/quote]

Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Kelly Slater(43!).

Or talent is just talent and the atg's are just rare occurrences.
[/quote]

Is tennis more popular now then it was on a global scale 25 years ago? I'm not sure. Tennis you still see dominance as you say but I'm not sure tennis has become more capitalized. If anything it seems to have become less popular in the US, but maybe I am wrong
[/quote]
The tennis craze has definitely run it's course in Australia. Growing up in the 80s tennis centres were popping up everywhere and courts were booked solid every night of the week. Now you see empty courts and closed complexes. As a result you don't see many Aussie champions. I have also seen a big decline in golf over the last 10 years or so too so it will be interesting to see if there any Days or Scotts or Ogilvys in the next gen of Aussie golfers.