Jordan Speith - Weak Era

[Afraid2goLow]

[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 [/quote]

Weird someone would be on this forum who doesnt actually play golf and think putting isnt a big part of golf. I get people who dont play golf and watch the majors ask me why is Spieth so good he doesnt hit it 350 like Dustin and i tell them well he hits it 320 which is plenty far and is the best putter and all around player in the game, he doesnt do anything incredibly he does everything incredibly. Again i dont blame you for thinking Spieth isnt good you must not follow the game i just dont get why you would be on a golf equipment forum.

[SplashShot]

Speith and Woods both went 18 under at the Masters. One did it before the Tiger-proofing course changes, one did it after.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='SplashShot' timestamp='1437513477' post='11994614']
Speith and Woods both went 18 under at the Masters. One did it before the Tiger-proofing course changes, one did it after.
[/quote]

One won by 4 shots.

One won by 12 ; )

[robelinks]

We are at the dawn of a golden era in golf. Look how well the young players did. The amateurs also played really well in this Open.

There is no back-off on the group coming up right now - thanks in large part to how Tiger used to play.

In days gone by, you could get a lead and shoot a couple under on Sunday and win. Not anymore. Sergio shot two under on the final round and wasn't even in the discussion.

[hwc1954]

Anyone who doesn't think Jordan Spieth does anything incredibly well should go back and take a look at the 3-wood shots he hit at Chambers Bay.

Jordan Spieth has led the field in birdies at each of the three majors this year. Most birdies at Augusta. Most birdies at Chambers Bay. Most birdies at St. Andrews. He leads the PGA tour in birdies per round for the 2015 season.

I don't think that happens by not being incredibly good at something on the course.

[Finbarr Saunders]

Jordan Spieth is without a doubt the greatest young golfer that has ever lived

[JaNelson38]

There's nothing "weak" about this era in golf. Guys have better equipment now, but they're also playing on courses that are longer and tougher than those played years ago. A course like Augusta National is a hell of a lot different now than it was even in 2000.

[Mahamilto]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437513921' post='11994650']
[quote name='SplashShot' timestamp='1437513477' post='11994614']
Speith and Woods both went 18 under at the Masters. One did it before the Tiger-proofing course changes, one did it after.
[/quote]

One won by 4 shots.

One won by 12 ; )
[/quote]

EXACTLY... the big difference today is absolutely not how good the best players are... Every generation has its select few legendary players. The difference is back when Hogan or Palmer or Tiger (at first) played, the rest of the field has zero shot of winning unless something surprising happened. Today, those at the top have to fend off a ton of guys who could win any given week. Talk about pressure! The fact that Spieth has managed to win in tighter situations should actually be a tip off to his tenacity.

[Wknd_Warrior]

I think you are dead wrong. You want to see guys driving 320 and hooking the ball around trees all day, that makes you think they are good. While guys with blue capes and little read booties are fun to watch, the score card doesn't care about Mr Universe poses.

Speith is teaching the field the meaning of the word golf, it's that simple. If the field is weak, and it isn't IMO, it's because they are busy posing instead of shooting low scores.

Of course there are lots of low scores out there, Jordan's just happen to be lower.

And as for power, I think he drives it 290+ when he feels there is a reason to take the risk. Maybe that's something he learned from the GOAT that has been overlooked by everyone else?

[dieselmd]

After reading for 6 pages it is quite apparent that the OP does not watch Golf. Irrespective of what his swing looks like and how long he "may" hit it, this kid wipes the floor with anyone once the ball is in the fairway.

[widow-maker]

[quote name='JaNelson38' timestamp='1437514642' post='11994758']
There's nothing "weak" about this era in golf. Guys have better equipment now, but they're also playing on courses that are longer and tougher than those played years ago. A course like Augusta National is a hell of a lot different now than it was even in 2000.
[/quote]450 yd holes are Driver/wedge for these guys now. 450 yd holes in the 60's were unreachable by many of the pros. The equipment has far outpaced the lengthening of courses. If you had a 430 yd hole with rough, and drove it 230 into that rough, you couldn't hit the 4 wood out of it. Today's players... that's a drive and a 9 iron out of the rough. They used to hit 9 iron but it was just to get it back into the fairway 100 yds or so from the green. Out of bounds used to come into play quite frequently with the balata ball. Today's ball goes very straight by comparison. Today's golf ball is the single biggest development in golf. You're talking 75 yds further with today's ball and it goes straighter. When Nicklaus had a 100 yd shot, that was a PW, certainly not a SW. Today, these guys hit 60 degree wedges that far. That's a 14 degree difference for the same distance!

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1437515182' post='11994816']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437513921' post='11994650']
[quote name='SplashShot' timestamp='1437513477' post='11994614']
Speith and Woods both went 18 under at the Masters. One did it before the Tiger-proofing course changes, one did it after.
[/quote]

One won by 4 shots.

One won by 12 ; )
[/quote]

EXACTLY... the big difference today is absolutely not how good the best players are... Every generation has its select few legendary players. The difference is back when Hogan or Palmer or Tiger (at first) played, the rest of the field has zero shot of winning unless something surprising happened. Today, those at the top have to fend off a ton of guys who could win any given week. Talk about pressure! The fact that Spieth has managed to win in tighter situations should actually be a tip off to his tenacity.
[/quote]

Not the biggest Tiger fan, but the "zero" shot at winning, while hyperbole I know, is more appropriately directed at Tiger. Hogan and Palmer had their ups and downs and plenty of competitors, they didn't decimate fields the way Tiger did. Different era, and Tiger still the most unique talent I've seen - but not golf's greatest champion.

[QuigleyDU]

[quote name='widow-maker' timestamp='1437518039' post='11995098']
[quote name='JaNelson38' timestamp='1437514642' post='11994758']
There's nothing "weak" about this era in golf. Guys have better equipment now, but they're also playing on courses that are longer and tougher than those played years ago. A course like Augusta National is a hell of a lot different now than it was even in 2000.
[/quote]450 yd holes are Driver/wedge for these guys now. 450 yd holes in the 60's were unreachable by many of the pros. The equipment has far outpaced the lengthening of courses. If you had a 430 yd hole with rough, and drove it 230 into that rough, you couldn't hit the 4 wood out of it. Today's players... that's a drive and a 9 iron out of the rough. They used to hit 9 iron but it was just to get it back into the fairway 100 yds or so from the green. Out of bounds used to come into play quite frequently with the balata ball. Today's ball goes very straight by comparison. Today's golf ball is the single biggest development in golf. You're talking 75 yds further with today's ball and it goes straighter. When Nicklaus had a 100 yd shot, that was a PW, certainly not a SW. Today, these guys hit 60 degree wedges that far. That's a 14 degree difference for the same distance!
[/quote]

yet scoring average stay the same.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='dieselmd' timestamp='1437517863' post='11995080']
After reading for 6 pages it is quite apparent that the OP does not watch Golf. Irrespective of what his swing looks like and how long he "may" hit it, this kid wipes the floor with anyone once the ball is in the fairway.
[/quote]

Not Zach. A stroke's difference the last two weeks between the two.

And frankly, a lot of other players aren't getting wiped by Spieth, but he has "it".

It's really, really hard to win golf tournaments. Spieth and Zach Johnson and others have demonstrated that "extra" whatever it is that seems to allow them to win multiple majors and win multiple times on tour. Very rarified air.

[Mahamilto]

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1437518133' post='11995106']
[quote name='Mahamilto' timestamp='1437515182' post='11994816']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437513921' post='11994650']
[quote name='SplashShot' timestamp='1437513477' post='11994614']
Speith and Woods both went 18 under at the Masters. One did it before the Tiger-proofing course changes, one did it after.
[/quote]

One won by 4 shots.

One won by 12 ; )
[/quote]

EXACTLY... the big difference today is absolutely not how good the best players are... Every generation has its select few legendary players. The difference is back when Hogan or Palmer or Tiger (at first) played, the rest of the field has zero shot of winning unless something surprising happened. Today, those at the top have to fend off a ton of guys who could win any given week. Talk about pressure! The fact that Spieth has managed to win in tighter situations should actually be a tip off to his tenacity.
[/quote]

Not the biggest Tiger fan, but the "zero" shot at winning, while hyperbole I know, is more appropriately directed at Tiger. Hogan and Palmer had their ups and downs and plenty of competitors, they didn't decimate fields the way Tiger did. Different era, and Tiger still the most unique talent I've seen - but not golf's greatest champion.
[/quote]

As it related to a single golfer, yes the zero shot was directed at Tiger. I'm also using superlatives and rhetoric to make my point stronger but it doesn't change reality one bit. IN the Hogan or Palmer/Nicklaus etc eras... it would be more appropriate to say that the several few greats were jockeying for top spot... it was the rest of the field that had "zero" chance. The point is the absolute top has maybe crept up in ability some, but it is the average tour pro that is leaps and bounds better than the average pro prior to 1990s. If I am a human golfer, prone to an occasional slip up, I'd much prefer that I'm being chased by 2-4 golfers that stand a chance than 100...

Woods is polarizing for so many reasons to many different people. If you have to wonder why you should most likely take a sociology class. His dominance, however, was indisputable, even with bad athletes chasing him. The guy won nearly every Sunday.... and not by a stroke here or there... he was obliterating the field.

To be 100% honest, I think Tiger Woods, in his prime, is the best golfer the world has ever seen. Now had he had the modern field would he have been winning by 12+ strokes a week? Doubt it... but I am certain he would have been winning... a lot. Had woods played in the 30-80s he may have never lost. I know this upsets some people... but even though the equipment wasn't as good, the courses were just soooooooooo much easier. Shorter, flatter greens, less bunkers, larger fairways.... you name it. Had Woods played in those eras he would have run away with it too. Granted, a Palmer or Hogan etc would have won here and there, but vs. Tiger in his prime? The guy who single-handedly turned golf from a recreational activity for overweight, aging, affluent white men into a legitimate athletic competition (a sport).... Lets just say some of the greats of their era would not be such household names if Tiger had arrived then.

[Hawkeye77]

Jeez, if a guy travelled through time with an AK-47 and lots of ammo he'd fare well in the Crusades for awhile.

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1437520460' post='11995296']
Jeez, if a guy travelled through time with an AK-47 and lots of ammo he'd fare well in the Crusades for awhile.
[/quote]

Not a chance....Do you know how many times those crusaders finished in second aswell? They were basically top 2 in every crusade. Very clutch

[pinsucker]

@nicebutdim I guess 18 under at a longer tougher Augusta is just average golf for the old time greats ... You are indeed dim-witted

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1437520913' post='11995344']
[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1437520460' post='11995296']
Jeez, if a guy travelled through time with an AK-47 and lots of ammo he'd fare well in the Crusades for awhile.
[/quote]

Not a chance....Do you know how many times those crusaders finished in second aswell? They were basically top 2 in every crusade. Very clutch
[/quote]

These transport Tiger back in time to play against Hogan or whomever posts always crack me up.

[Wknd_Warrior]

taken from another post that was taken from golf my way, Jack iron distance

[quote][size=5]Pitching wedge: 80-130 yards[/size]


[size=5]Sand wedge: Up to 100 yards[/size][/quote]

His PW would have been 52 and the SW 56. I'm guessing from his PW distance he could have hit his SW 110 but in those days it was a more specialized club so they probably didn't use it the same way.

The ball hasn't changed iron distance all that much, not when you look at loft and shaft length. It's a different story off of the tee though.

[glk]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1437520913' post='11995344']
[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1437520460' post='11995296']
Jeez, if a guy travelled through time with an AK-47 and lots of ammo he'd fare well in the Crusades for awhile.
[/quote]

Not a chance....Do you know how many times those crusaders finished in second aswell? They were basically top 2 in every crusade. Very clutch
[/quote]

Now a 12-gauge double-barreled Remington from S-Mart might just do the job - ask for the one that never runs out of ammo.

[UCBananaboy]

Question:

Would you be more surprised by Tiger winning another Major

OR

Spieth breaking the all-time Majors record by the end of his career?

[deadsolid...shank]

Is there anything that substantiates the courses being that much more difficult now? Yes they are longer, but the runway like fairways and equipment pretty much make that a wash. People have said there are more bunkers and thicker rough, any facts to support that? That crap Watson chipped out of on #17 at Pebble Beach in 82 looked as thick as anything I've seen lately.

The greens are faster now, but how much better and truer are they? I'm guessing any pro would rather putt on a extremely smooth green running at 13 as opposed to bumpy, spiked up green running at nine.

I'm not disputing the talent levels in today's game. There are so many good players, I don't think you can argue that. But I do dispute that it's so much tougher out there now condition wise.

[OTTgolf]

[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437466329' post='11990656']
[quote name='Jonesy' timestamp='1437464550' post='11990628']
I am still struggling to understand how this is a weak era?? Roughly the same guys are performing in every major over the last couple of years, Day has been an absolute dream in majors and Fowler, but because they aren't crushing the field by 8 shots at a time this era of players is weak? Surely if a player was destroying the field by 5+ shots every major then that era of players is weak because no one can challenge that player? I think it's awesome that there are bunched leaderboards in majors now and that it's not a dead giveaway as to who is going to win, there are rivalries now (note the plural of rivalry) and that makes all these tournaments so exciting! Perhaps you need to look at it that in this era all the current pro's are good and that any of them can actually win any given tournament.

Fantastic interpretation of Louis Oosthuizen's name by the way, westhouse-zen is definitely one of the more creative and ignorant ways of interpreting it.
[/quote]

(b)oost-haze-zen?

Conversely bunched leaderboards full of players who are a known quantity (Rose, South African fella, Donald, Johnson 1 & 2) does not make an era strong. It can also mean there are no truly outstanding talents on display. 3-4 guys breaking from the peloton is ideally what you want.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting if 3-4 guys break away consistently that is a stronger era vs. 10 steady superstars + 20 or more players with a realistic chance to win?

[widow-maker]

[quote name='QuigleyDU' timestamp='1437518152' post='11995108']
[quote name='widow-maker' timestamp='1437518039' post='11995098']
[quote name='JaNelson38' timestamp='1437514642' post='11994758']
There's nothing "weak" about this era in golf. Guys have better equipment now, but they're also playing on courses that are longer and tougher than those played years ago. A course like Augusta National is a hell of a lot different now than it was even in 2000.
[/quote]450 yd holes are Driver/wedge for these guys now. 450 yd holes in the 60's were unreachable by many of the pros. The equipment has far outpaced the lengthening of courses. If you had a 430 yd hole with rough, and drove it 230 into that rough, you couldn't hit the 4 wood out of it. Today's players... that's a drive and a 9 iron out of the rough. They used to hit 9 iron but it was just to get it back into the fairway 100 yds or so from the green. Out of bounds used to come into play quite frequently with the balata ball. Today's ball goes very straight by comparison. Today's golf ball is the single biggest development in golf. You're talking 75 yds further with today's ball and it goes straighter. When Nicklaus had a 100 yd shot, that was a PW, certainly not a SW. Today, these guys hit 60 degree wedges that far. That's a 14 degree difference for the same distance!
[/quote]

yet scoring average stay the same.
[/quote]Yeah, or at least close. Just goes to show that you practice the shots you need to practice. Today's game it's the driver and wedges. Yesterdays game you had to have a good mid range game. You take the guys from the 70's and give them todays equipment and they'd start bombing the driver and practice the wedge game. They'd also buy right into the fitness. But, a good player would still be a good player.

[markheardjr]

[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]
I'd agree with this. Tennis was huge in the 80's with the McEnroe / Connors era. Then Sampras was the dominant star of the 90's against the crowd pleasing Agassi and a few other randoms. Their great play elevated tennis to ratings highs and attracted young players in the sport. That era produced a Tiger-like player in Federer who waltzed into a weaker field on the ATP tour and took it by storm. Federer is both like Tiger in his dominance but also like Rory in that he is the echo generation of the highest public era of tennis. Tennis was on the decline when Federer came around. Yeah you had some decent players here and there. But the echo generation from the Sampras/Agassi days created the Nadal's, Djokovich's, & Federer's and a few bright flashes like Roddick, Kuerten, Youzney, etc. Now we have the same in golf.

Back to Golf, I think we are on the upswing of a new era in golf of a strong field of youngsters. The Tiger echo is maturing, the golfers who were 3 or 4 when Tiger went lights out at Augusta in 1997 are here to play. Yeah there were some flashes that fizzled like Sergio, Mahan, etc. But the amateur ranks are deep and guys like Spieth, McIlroy, Fowler, Horschel, Koepka, Dubuisson, Matsuyama, Bradley, Reed, Day, Johnson, Henley etc etc etc are here now. There are a lot of names too root for for once.

But to agree with Mtl, tennis is on the decline.

[notsohard]

[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've got a really good recipe for an omelette, delicious.

[dieselmd]

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1437518325' post='11995122']
[quote name='dieselmd' timestamp='1437517863' post='11995080']
After reading for 6 pages it is quite apparent that the OP does not watch Golf. Irrespective of what his swing looks like and how long he "may" hit it, this kid wipes the floor with anyone once the ball is in the fairway.
[/quote]

Not Zach. A stroke's difference the last two weeks between the two.

And frankly, a lot of other players aren't getting wiped by Spieth, but he has "it".

It's really, really hard to win golf tournaments. Spieth and Zach Johnson and others have demonstrated that "extra" whatever it is that seems to allow them to win multiple majors and win multiple times on tour. Very rarified air.
[/quote]

I speak of his ability to hit greens and hold putts. When he misses a green, he more than often gets up and down. Zach can certainly do that, just not as often as Jordan. The stats don't lie.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='notsohard' timestamp='1437524273' post='11995672']
[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've got a really good recipe for an omelette, delicious.
[/quote]

Your omelette recipe SUCKS compared to those from the 70's and 80's bruh!

[Sean2]

Weak era? Nothing weak about this era at all. As far as the whole distance thing goes, tell that to Zach Johnson.