Jordan Speith - Weak Era

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437584523' post='12000134']
I'm just providing some facts, which people on this site tend to overlook. It's not a Tiger / Jack thing. It's for any sport. Take basketball. Compare Lebron at 25 vs someone who went to college for 4 years. It's a stupid comparison.
[/quote]

Most folks would give Lebron credit for playing at a high professional level at a younger age than others.

[Lodestone]

[quote name='texchad12' timestamp='1437578638' post='11999516']
This is the equivalent to the "Babe Ruth would be the best player in MLB if he played today" argument. The answer is no, no he wouldn't.
[/quote]

Well, to make that fair, today's players would have to be made to eat a lot of hot dogs, drink enormous amounts of beer and champagne, and smoke a dozen cigars a day. OK, NOW see who can hit 714 home runs.

[dan360]

[quote name='Lodestone' timestamp='1437586152' post='12000338']
[quote name='texchad12' timestamp='1437578638' post='11999516']
This is the equivalent to the "Babe Ruth would be the best player in MLB if he played today" argument. The answer is no, no he wouldn't.
[/quote]

Well, to make that fair, today's players would have to be made to eat a lot of hot dogs, drink enormous amounts of beer and champagne, and smoke a dozen cigars a day. OK, NOW see who can hit 714 home runs.
[/quote]

Off of some guy who works at the steel mill full time and throws 3 nights a week, or off of Nolan Ryan? Or Felix Hernandez?

[bscinstnct]

This is the equivalent to the "Babe Ruth would be the best player in MLB if he played today" argument. The answer is no, no he wouldn't.

 

Well, to make that fair, today's players would have to be made to eat a lot of hot dogs, drink enormous amounts of beer and champagne, and smoke a dozen cigars a day. OK, NOW see who can hit 714 home runs.

 

Ruth very may well have been the best today. Total outlier.

 

Legit 6'2.

 

Got fat but maybe on todays "vitamins", guy would be 240 lbs of muscle.

 

Hit more home runs himself than any entire team in the AL and all but one in the NL.

 

Oh, yeah, and he won 23 games with a 1.75 ERA as a pitcher before transitioning to just hitting.

 

 

[Mahamilto]

Babe Ruth would be great in this era as well... but he wouldn't be close to a Miguel Cabrera or similar. The guys today are just so much more physically able and the competition is so much tighter. I read a Sports Illustrated article while I was still in professional baseball that said in 1995 there were 11 pitchers who averaged 95 on their fastball for the season. 9 righties and 3 lefties. In 2005 there were 35, 6 lefties, in 2010 there were 64, 18 of them left handed.

Guys... trust me when I say this... guys throw so much harder today and its a completely different game than when Ruth played. The guy used a 40oz bat. Even the biggest and strongest players are using 31-33oz bats these days.

I think Ruth, just like legands of any sport, was an exceptional talent with reasonable athleticism (bad by today's standards) and incredible skill. I will not aruge that the greats of the past were as skill (in any sport) as the greats of today, but the players in pro sports today are completely different animals. Now had those legands grown up in the modern era, would they have been bigger and better trained? Sure, but who knows how much. The reality is that the interbreeding and evolutionary small changes over decades do produce more fit physical individuals... and they are just as skilled as the less athletic greats of the past.

[bscinstnct]

Babe Ruth would be great in this era as well... but he wouldn't be close to a Miguel Cabrera or similar. The guys today are just so much more physically able and the competition is so much tighter. I read a Sports Illustrated article while I was still in professional baseball that said in 1995 there were 11 pitchers who averaged 95 on their fastball for the season. 9 righties and 3 lefties. In 2005 there were 35, 6 lefties, in 2010 there were 64, 18 of them left handed.

 

Guys... trust me when I say this... guys throw so much harder today and its a completely different game than when Ruth played. The guy used a 40oz bat. Even the biggest and strongest players are using 31-33oz bats these days.

 

I think Ruth, just like legands of any sport, was an exceptional talent with reasonable athleticism (bad by today's standards) and incredible skill. I will not aruge that the greats of the past were as skill (in any sport) as the greats of today, but the players in pro sports today are completely different animals. Now had those legands grown up in the modern era, would they have been bigger and better trained? Sure, but who knows how much. The reality is that the interbreeding and evolutionary small changes over decades do produce more fit physical individuals... and they are just as skilled as the less athletic greats of the past.

 

[Mahamilto]

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.

 

Yes... there is. Look at how many bunkers and water hazards have been added. The equipment is for sure better, and the courses are smoother, but the higher end courses have been shrinking greens, adding hazards and undulation and making the pin locations more diabolical ever since tiger. It's not to say courses were all easy back in the day, but there are more things out there to snap your score up in a hurry.

 

As for the fairways being harder and the equipment being so much better that the courses aren't really longer... I dunno. Irrigation has changed the world of golf. Fairway mowers have been cutting it pretty short for a very long time, but courses back in the day got WAY less irrigation than now. I could think of many cases, especially in the very early era, where hot summer courses in the south especially could have been like hitting driver into a parking lot. That being said, COR maxed in what? 2005 or so? Agusta, Torrey Pines, Bethpage, and many others have moved their PGA boxes back since then... so its not just the equipment... its the players.

 

Babe Ruth would be great in this era as well... but he wouldn't be close to a Miguel Cabrera or similar. The guys today are just so much more physically able and the competition is so much tighter. I read a Sports Illustrated article while I was still in professional baseball that said in 1995 there were 11 pitchers who averaged 95 on their fastball for the season. 9 righties and 3 lefties. In 2005 there were 35, 6 lefties, in 2010 there were 64, 18 of them left handed.

 

Guys... trust me when I say this... guys throw so much harder today and its a completely different game than when Ruth played. The guy used a 40oz bat. Even the biggest and strongest players are using 31-33oz bats these days.

 

I think Ruth, just like legands of any sport, was an exceptional talent with reasonable athleticism (bad by today's standards) and incredible skill. I will not aruge that the greats of the past were as skill (in any sport) as the greats of today, but the players in pro sports today are completely different animals. Now had those legands grown up in the modern era, would they have been bigger and better trained? Sure, but who knows how much. The reality is that the interbreeding and evolutionary small changes over decades do produce more fit physical individuals... and they are just as skilled as the less athletic greats of the past.

 

 

Love seeing him in a Red Sox uni... back when he was an All-Star pitcher before becoming a full time outfielder~!

 

Also, just speaking of baseball, the average fastball for all of the Major Leagues was just about 90 in the 1980s (RHP, 87 LHP), today the average fastball is more around 92.5 (93.1 Righties, 91.5 lefties). When you are talking about hitting from 60'6" and 90mph reaches the bat in 0.39 seconds, when you add even a single MPH average it changes the game. Your talking going from 0.39 to about 0.33. Doesn't sound like much, but its night and day.

[bscinstnct]

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.

 

Yes... there is. Look at how many bunkers and water hazards have been added. The equipment is for sure better, and the courses are smoother, but the higher end courses have been shrinking greens, adding hazards and undulation and making the pin locations more diabolical ever since tiger. It's not to say courses were all easy back in the day, but there are more things out there to snap your score up in a hurry.

 

As for the fairways being harder and the equipment being so much better that the courses aren't really longer... I dunno. Irrigation has changed the world of golf. Fairway mowers have been cutting it pretty short for a very long time, but courses back in the day got WAY less irrigation than now. I could think of many cases, especially in the very early era, where hot summer courses in the south especially could have been like hitting driver into a parking lot. That being said, COR maxed in what? 2005 or so? Agusta, Torrey Pines, Bethpage, and many others have moved their PGA boxes back since then... so its not just the equipment... its the players.

 

Babe Ruth would be great in this era as well... but he wouldn't be close to a Miguel Cabrera or similar. The guys today are just so much more physically able and the competition is so much tighter. I read a Sports Illustrated article while I was still in professional baseball that said in 1995 there were 11 pitchers who averaged 95 on their fastball for the season. 9 righties and 3 lefties. In 2005 there were 35, 6 lefties, in 2010 there were 64, 18 of them left handed.

 

Guys... trust me when I say this... guys throw so much harder today and its a completely different game than when Ruth played. The guy used a 40oz bat. Even the biggest and strongest players are using 31-33oz bats these days.

 

I think Ruth, just like legands of any sport, was an exceptional talent with reasonable athleticism (bad by today's standards) and incredible skill. I will not aruge that the greats of the past were as skill (in any sport) as the greats of today, but the players in pro sports today are completely different animals. Now had those legands grown up in the modern era, would they have been bigger and better trained? Sure, but who knows how much. The reality is that the interbreeding and evolutionary small changes over decades do produce more fit physical individuals... and they are just as skilled as the less athletic greats of the past.

 

 

Love seeing him in a Red Sox uni... back when he was an All-Star pitcher before becoming a full time outfielder~!

 

Also, just speaking of baseball, the average fastball for all of the Major Leagues was just about 90 in the 1980s (RHP, 87 LHP), today the average fastball is more around 92.5 (93.1 Righties, 91.5 lefties). When you are talking about hitting from 60'6" and 90mph reaches the bat in 0.39 seconds, when you add even a single MPH average it changes the game. Your talking going from 0.39 to about 0.33. Doesn't sound like much, but its night and day.

 

 

This is pretty cool>>>

 

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7535.aspx

 

 

 

"Pujols visited Washington University in April to take part in a series of laboratory tests similar to those conducted on Babe Ruth on a summer afternoon in 1921 by a couple of graduate students at Columbia University. ..

 

Pujols, like Ruth, was asked to demonstrate his hitting form while hooked up to various machines that monitored the strength and speed of his swing. Pujols, complaining of a strained back, may have “held himself back a bit” on some of the tests, but his results compared favorably with those of Ruth.

In terms of sheer batting speed, Pujols swung his preferred 31.5-ounce bat at a speed of 86.99 miles per hour. Ruth, on the other hand, using a 54-ounce bat, swung at an estimated speed of 75 miles an hour.

“Making exact comparisons between the Pujols and Ruth test results is difficult because the tests given to Ruth were not very well normed,” suggests White. “But it’s clear that both Ruth and Pujols performed well above average on a number of tests that are very similar in nature.”"

[avrag]

I don't get it what people do when comparing eras. The only thing that makes sense is to take the same human being and put him in today's environment with access to the same practice possibilities and the same scientific and technological options. If you do that, of course Babe Ruth would be dominant today as well, as would Jack Nicklaus. If today's athletes are "better", it is because they have more means to improve their performance. In terms of talent and physical and mental abilities, the greatest of all eras are probably pretty close to each other.

[ebk]

Babe Ruth is also the last left-handed pitcher for the Red Sox to twice win 20 games in a season. Only one lefty (Mel Parnell) has won 20 games since.

[DZ1454]

Interestingly enough if you look at ESPN's commentary on ZJ in the HoF.

"[b]Sobel:[/b] Fact. It used to be that 15 wins was the low-end barometer for Hall of Fame golfers, like 3,000 hits in baseball. [u]But this is a new era, a deeper era, [/u]so those minimums should be adjusted. The fact that Johnson has wins on the game's two most hallowed grounds should seal the deal. And just in case it doesn't, he's not done yet."

Not saying he/ESPN are the end all be all...just a thought

[North Texas]

[quote name='rainkingjr' timestamp='1437511589' post='11994454']
This topic is complete nonsense.
[/quote]

There have been more than a few threads started this week that fall the category of complete nonsense.

[hell_is_chrome]

[quote name='Bear Trader' timestamp='1437573103' post='11998884']
Old Phil with arthritis finally won at the Open and event he always missed the cut in during his prime. If this is not more proof this era is a joke what else is there?
[/quote]

Anyone who watched those 2 weeks where Phil won the Scottish Open and The Open Championship knows that this is an incredibly dumb comment.

[Mahamilto]

Please don't forget that as a species, especially as we continually have cultural and ethnic assimilation, our genetics change to have a more able species. The assimilation of various genomes from around the globe creates offspring who have many of the advantageous traits of different environmentally driven genomic changes.

Seriously guys... There are so many elements of why people are better athletes today. Part of it is nurture (nutrition, medicine, and training regimens are better today then ever), but part of it absolutely is nature as well. We are seeing more and more naturally gifted athletes arise with every generation. There is something to be said for that.

[nvmyprixgt]

He's just so boring and bland.

[bscinstnct]

He's just so boring and bland.

 

[CrabDaddy]

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

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

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

* - there are obviously parallels for all sports.

[CrabDaddy]

[quote name='pokerplayer' timestamp='1437537123' post='11997198']
weak era argument is bullxxxx. if you are a generational player (ie. once in a decade or century type player), [b]you are so busy crushing the field that no one else can win anything[/b]. basically if you apply the same logic to nicklaus, tiger or speith, you are going to see that they are going against a 'weak era'. almost by definition, strong players create weak era's.

in the 70's nickaus, won 8 majors and placed t10 in all but 4 majors, how else are other players suppose to "win" if nicklaus is already taking up all the spots? similarly, tiger won 14majors out a possible 44 in 11 years, thats 32%. its actually insane to win a THIRD of all the majors. again, how else is anyone going to win anything of substance.

seemingly, spieth has been placing at t3 or so at every tournament. the tour has always tried to "defend par", so the courses' difficultly adjust a little to the players, so scoring average is not the most accurate measure in absolute skill/ability/ talent.
[/quote]
I would say the bolded is actually argument for Nicklaus' era being stronger - that is, despite him winning 18 majors, there were a number of guys with elite careers happening at the same time - Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Miller, Floyd. His major wins came mostly at the "expense" of Bruce Crampton, Palmer, Doug Sanders, and Tom Weiskopf.

Now, I really don't buy into the comparison of eras, because EVERYTHING changes over time, but the number of truly elite golfers playing alongside Nicklaus, '62-'80, does stand out.

[nochct1]

[quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437604600' post='12002416']
[quote name='pokerplayer' timestamp='1437537123' post='11997198']
weak era argument is bullxxxx. if you are a generational player (ie. once in a decade or century type player), [b]you are so busy crushing the field that no one else can win anything[/b]. basically if you apply the same logic to nicklaus, tiger or speith, you are going to see that they are going against a 'weak era'. almost by definition, strong players create weak era's.

in the 70's nickaus, won 8 majors and placed t10 in all but 4 majors, how else are other players suppose to "win" if nicklaus is already taking up all the spots? similarly, tiger won 14majors out a possible 44 in 11 years, thats 32%. its actually insane to win a THIRD of all the majors. again, how else is anyone going to win anything of substance.

seemingly, spieth has been placing at t3 or so at every tournament. the tour has always tried to "defend par", so the courses' difficultly adjust a little to the players, so scoring average is not the most accurate measure in absolute skill/ability/ talent.
[/quote]
I would say the bolded is actually argument for Nicklaus' era being stronger - that is, despite him winning 18 majors, there were a number of guys with elite careers happening at the same time - Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Miller, Floyd. His major wins came mostly at the "expense" of Bruce Crampton, Palmer, Doug Sanders, and Tom Weiskopf.

Now, I really don't buy into the comparison of eras, because EVERYTHING changes over time, but the number of truly elite golfers playing alongside Nicklaus, '62-'80, does stand out.
[/quote]

And we have now come full circle and will start this ride again.

[dlygrisse]

If we are comparing eras things obviously change, most notably course condition and equipment. If you want to throw physical conditioning in there as well that's fine, it makes perfect sense. However golf is not track and field, or football, it is more about the mental aspect and controlling ones emotions. So while working out and eating well may add a few yards and sustain your career for a longer period of time what does it really get you in golf? I'll take a cigarette smoking, scotch drinking Ben Hogan over a guy who lives in the gym and is hooked to a launch monitor at the range.

Spieth is good because of his brain, and yes he is in good physical shape, so was Tiger, so was Jack (well kind of, fat Jack was a great athlete even if he ate a little too much at one time) Great players are great players in any era, the stats may be a bit skewed from one era to another, but champions are champions.

[CrabDaddy]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437605143' post='12002464'][quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437604600' post='12002416']
[quote name='pokerplayer' timestamp='1437537123' post='11997198']
weak era argument is bullxxxx. if you are a generational player (ie. once in a decade or century type player), [b]you are so busy crushing the field that no one else can win anything[/b]. basically if you apply the same logic to nicklaus, tiger or speith, you are going to see that they are going against a 'weak era'. almost by definition, strong players create weak era's.

in the 70's nickaus, won 8 majors and placed t10 in all but 4 majors, how else are other players suppose to "win" if nicklaus is already taking up all the spots? similarly, tiger won 14majors out a possible 44 in 11 years, thats 32%. its actually insane to win a THIRD of all the majors. again, how else is anyone going to win anything of substance.

seemingly, spieth has been placing at t3 or so at every tournament. the tour has always tried to "defend par", so the courses' difficultly adjust a little to the players, so scoring average is not the most accurate measure in absolute skill/ability/ talent.
[/quote]
I would say the bolded is actually argument for Nicklaus' era being stronger - that is, despite him winning 18 majors, there were a number of guys with elite careers happening at the same time - Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Miller, Floyd. His major wins came mostly at the "expense" of Bruce Crampton, Palmer, Doug Sanders, and Tom Weiskopf.

Now, I really don't buy into the comparison of eras, because EVERYTHING changes over time, but the number of truly elite golfers playing alongside Nicklaus, '62-'80, does stand out.
[/quote]

And we have now come full circle and will start this ride again.[/quote]
Whoops! Sorry if something similar was said earlier - I don't read 'em all. My point was that just because there is a dominant player doesn't mean his era necessarily looks weak. Every era is different, not necessarily better or worse, but always different.

[NV825]

This is golf's version of "my dad can beat up your dad"

[carrier street]

We are so, so far down the rabbit hole here.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437604600' post='12002416']
[quote name='pokerplayer' timestamp='1437537123' post='11997198']
weak era argument is bullxxxx. if you are a generational player (ie. once in a decade or century type player), [b]you are so busy crushing the field that no one else can win anything[/b]. basically if you apply the same logic to nicklaus, tiger or speith, you are going to see that they are going against a 'weak era'. almost by definition, strong players create weak era's.

in the 70's nickaus, won 8 majors and placed t10 in all but 4 majors, how else are other players suppose to "win" if nicklaus is already taking up all the spots? similarly, tiger won 14majors out a possible 44 in 11 years, thats 32%. its actually insane to win a THIRD of all the majors. again, how else is anyone going to win anything of substance.

seemingly, spieth has been placing at t3 or so at every tournament. the tour has always tried to "defend par", so the courses' difficultly adjust a little to the players, so scoring average is not the most accurate measure in absolute skill/ability/ talent.
[/quote]
I would say the bolded is actually argument for Nicklaus' era being stronger - that is, despite him winning 18 majors, there were a number of guys with elite careers happening at the same time - Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Miller, Floyd. His major wins came mostly at the "expense" of Bruce Crampton, Palmer, Doug Sanders, and Tom Weiskopf.

Now, I really don't buy into the comparison of eras, because EVERYTHING changes over time, but the number of truly elite golfers playing alongside Nicklaus, '62-'80, does stand out.
[/quote]If you think that era is good check out the era before it. 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the pga tour were born between 1890ish and 1915. Wow, those guys must have been studs!

[sammhk]

I think the real conversation is about sports reporting and finances here. Some of the other posts hit on it about Rickie, Day, Johnson, etc...how we're fed the story lines about these players as if they'd already won multiple majors when they haven't won any. Why? To make the whole thing more entertaining and draw higher ratings/revenues.

That's the only real change in the field over the years. There will always be dominant player, and every 30 years or so we'll see a very special talent. But what's changed from Jones to Hogan to Nicklaus to Woods is the access to media about what they are doing...and the folks making money have figured out how to present that media to make more of it. This conversation we're all having shows it.

I don't think this is a news flash to anyone in here, just a reminder not to get too drawn into the conversation that it turns into an argument. Cheers.

[SplashShot]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1437593107' post='12001122']
In terms of sheer batting speed, Pujols swung his preferred 31.5-ounce bat at a speed of 86.99 miles per hour. [b]Ruth, on the other hand, using a 54-ounce bat[/b], swung at an estimated speed of 75 miles an hour.
“Making exact comparisons between the Pujols and Ruth test results is difficult because the tests given to Ruth were not very well normed,” suggests White. “But it’s clear that both Ruth and Pujols performed well above average on a number of tests that are very similar in nature.”"
[/quote]

Ruth swung a 54 ounce bat????!!!!!!!!!!!

[CrabDaddy]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1437624914' post='12004274'][quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437604600' post='12002416']
[quote name='pokerplayer' timestamp='1437537123' post='11997198']
weak era argument is bullxxxx. if you are a generational player (ie. once in a decade or century type player), [b]you are so busy crushing the field that no one else can win anything[/b]. basically if you apply the same logic to nicklaus, tiger or speith, you are going to see that they are going against a 'weak era'. almost by definition, strong players create weak era's.

in the 70's nickaus, won 8 majors and placed t10 in all but 4 majors, how else are other players suppose to "win" if nicklaus is already taking up all the spots? similarly, tiger won 14majors out a possible 44 in 11 years, thats 32%. its actually insane to win a THIRD of all the majors. again, how else is anyone going to win anything of substance.

seemingly, spieth has been placing at t3 or so at every tournament. the tour has always tried to "defend par", so the courses' difficultly adjust a little to the players, so scoring average is not the most accurate measure in absolute skill/ability/ talent.
[/quote]
I would say the bolded is actually argument for Nicklaus' era being stronger - that is, despite him winning 18 majors, there were a number of guys with elite careers happening at the same time - Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Miller, Floyd. His major wins came mostly at the "expense" of Bruce Crampton, Palmer, Doug Sanders, and Tom Weiskopf.

Now, I really don't buy into the comparison of eras, because EVERYTHING changes over time, but the number of truly elite golfers playing alongside Nicklaus, '62-'80, does stand out.
[/quote]If you think that era is good check out the era before it. 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the pga tour were born between 1890ish and 1915. Wow, those guys must have been studs![/quote]
That's impressive. So, that would be the Hogan, Snead, Nelson era? +16 other guys in the top 37 for wins (with fewer tournaments, not as easy to travel).
I was using Jack, and his 18 majors, as the benchmark - if these other guys can pile up wins while he's setting the record...
But, the facts you present also add support the 'depth vs. width' argument - more wins/player because there were fewer talented players.
It's interesting, especially to look back at prior accomplishments, but I'm not going to say one era is any better than another - I just enjoy watching a talented player on a roll.
This kind of thing always results in a heated argument on the Physicists' forums. Who was smarter - Einstein, Newton, or Copernicus? It's just silly.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437653042' post='12004930']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1437624914' post='12004274'][quote name='CrabDaddy' timestamp='1437604600' post='12002416']
[quote name='pokerplayer' timestamp='1437537123' post='11997198']
weak era argument is bullxxxx. if you are a generational player (ie. once in a decade or century type player), [b]you are so busy crushing the field that no one else can win anything[/b]. basically if you apply the same logic to nicklaus, tiger or speith, you are going to see that they are going against a 'weak era'. almost by definition, strong players create weak era's.

in the 70's nickaus, won 8 majors and placed t10 in all but 4 majors, how else are other players suppose to "win" if nicklaus is already taking up all the spots? similarly, tiger won 14majors out a possible 44 in 11 years, thats 32%. its actually insane to win a THIRD of all the majors. again, how else is anyone going to win anything of substance.

seemingly, spieth has been placing at t3 or so at every tournament. the tour has always tried to "defend par", so the courses' difficultly adjust a little to the players, so scoring average is not the most accurate measure in absolute skill/ability/ talent.
[/quote]
I would say the bolded is actually argument for Nicklaus' era being stronger - that is, despite him winning 18 majors, there were a number of guys with elite careers happening at the same time - Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player, Miller, Floyd. His major wins came mostly at the "expense" of Bruce Crampton, Palmer, Doug Sanders, and Tom Weiskopf.

Now, I really don't buy into the comparison of eras, because EVERYTHING changes over time, but the number of truly elite golfers playing alongside Nicklaus, '62-'80, does stand out.
[/quote]If you think that era is good check out the era before it. 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the pga tour were born between 1890ish and 1915. Wow, those guys must have been studs![/quote]
That's impressive. So, that would be the Hogan, Snead, Nelson era? +16 other guys in the top 37 for wins (with fewer tournaments, not as easy to travel).
I was using Jack, and his 18 majors, as the benchmark - if these other guys can pile up wins while he's setting the record...
But, the facts you present also add support the 'depth vs. width' argument - more wins/player because there were fewer talented players.
It's interesting, especially to look back at prior accomplishments, but I'm not going to say one era is any better than another - I just enjoy watching a talented player on a roll.
This kind of thing always results in a heated argument on the Physicists' forums. Who was smarter - Einstein, Newton, or Copernicus? It's just silly.
[/quote]Yes, my point was that if the wins are more concentrated amongst a few players then that era is actually weaker, not stronger. That era was decimated by two world wars and really was just the start of professional golf as we know it. Were some of them great players? Probably. But they only faced a few other good players week to week. And if you look art the records many of their wins were events that are not considered wins today. Particularly two man best ball events. If I recall correctly Snead has 5 of those in his "official" 82 wins. Jack has 2 in his. Modern players world cup wins don't count.

[Dave230]

[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437568842' post='11998460']
[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437568370' post='11998416']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437541546' post='11997474']Key phrase: It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

Right. I don't even understand talking about a "Spieth era", let alone trying to decide if it's strong or weak. If there were to be a Spieth era, we won't know for another five or ten years. And, a Spieth era, were it to be, would play out over the next 20 years. Then, we can look back and decide if it was strong or weak.

With Rory McIlroy and Jordan Spieth leading the post-Tiger charge, it's certainly an exciting time for golf. Both have made a mark at the starts of their careers. Only time will tell how they sustain that.
[/quote]

I think Mcilroy is a very unique talent in the history of the game. He can play the game as good or better than anyone who ever lived, but is extremely mercurial. People may argue that he doesn't win as much as Snead, Jack and Tiger due to the depth of the field, but its clear that its because Rory is very inconsistent. Dominating a tournament one week, then missing a cut the next. If he were consistently posting top 5's then the argument that his competition is depriving him of more W's could be made.

Its hard to place Rory at present because of this, which makes him a far different golfer to the standard ATG's. You almost feel that he will go the way of Ballesteros one day and just lose "it" never again to be found.
[/quote]

As someone posted earlier, Rory is third all time for top 10 percentage on the PGA tour. How is that not consistent?

[RVAUSMC]

[quote name='CommerceTiger' timestamp='1437509785' post='11994270']
[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?
[/quote]

LOL...and it was a knock-down easy 5...