US Open Ratings Second Worst Ever

[PGArox]

So a guy like Day does not even scare the cut and the course was easy? Some here need to let that lame argument..statement really...go. Someone gimme' a better argument with facts. What was the highest rated? Age groups? What is the avg US Open rating vs the other majors?

 

Come on, now ... when golf observers say that Erin Hills was too easy, it is a relative statement. They are comparing Erin Hills, and the scores it produced, to the other U.S. Opens they have seen or read about.

 

As for Jason Day missing the cut, he would be the first to tell you the reason was not because Erin Hills was difficult, but that he played poorly.

 

So every top golfer that missed the cut played a relatively easy course poorly?

 

I am most certain that, if you had those guys on TV and asked them why they missed the cut, each and every one of them would say they didn't play to the level they expected to. They would give no other reason.

[Rapture25]

So it basically replaced last years US Open. Fox has 3 of the 4 lowest rated US Opens. Bad Luck or maybe people don't like Joe Buck.

 

To me it's not even Joe Buck (although he is terrible, especially when he commentates with a Troy Aikman). What annoyed me the most was the amateur hour cameramen. Almost ever drive was untraceable, wideview zoom out until the ball was found then super slow-mo zoom in until I could count every dimple on the ball. It's due to lack of coverage. It's like the guy that plays one round a year and expects to play under par from the tips. Expectation management.

[new2g0lf]

Day and others that missed the cut have nothing and no one to blame but themselves. The course was relatively easy from a pro tour course perspective given the weather and cut back fescue.

 

Those in contention were not well known except by hard core golf fans (except Fowler). Koepka put this out of reach nearly 2 hours before the end and no one cared if Harman caught him except for Harman's friends and family. Buck's constant reference to Harman having a chip on his shoulder because he thought Fowler disrespected him in college made me dislike Harman.

 

Overall there was no reason to tune in on Sunday unless you were a big golf fan and it being on Fox didn't help because most non golf fans wouldn't check Fox for golf.

[Hawkeye03]

So it basically replaced last years US Open. Fox has 3 of the 4 lowest rated US Opens. Bad Luck or maybe people don't like Joe Buck.

 

To me it's not even Joe Buck (although he is terrible, especially when he commentates with a Troy Aikman). What annoyed me the most was the amateur hour cameramen. Almost ever drive was untraceable, wideview zoom out until the ball was found then super slow-mo zoom in until I could count every dimple on the ball. It's due to lack of coverage. It's like the guy that plays one round a year and expects to play under par from the tips. Expectation management.

 

Agreed. Camera work is terrible.

[buckeyefl]

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

 

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.html

[msumark]

A few thoughts from someone who went on Friday and Saturday.

1. A friend of mine is one of the assistant superintendents and he was telling me all about the set-up and what the USGA did to the course. He said there were two possible outcomes: Either the wind would blow and the scores would be closer to par or the wind would not blow and the scores would be good. There was very little wind on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Even though the wind blew on Sunday, the course and greens were too soft from all the rain. The greens were soft but fast and smooth. He showed me a speed sheet for Saturday and #18 was running at 14ft 3in. Makes sense why people were making all sorts of putts.

2. It’s interesting to read that people thought that there were no interesting or featured holes. I stood by #9 tee and watched professionals struggle to pick the right club for basically a 150 yard hole. I sat at the green on 18 when Justin Thomas hit his 3-wood to 5 feet for eagle and then made the putt to break the record. I also watched a handful of players chip from the front of 18 green, off the back of the green, and then off the front.

3. Living north of Green Bay Wisconsin, it was awesome being able to go to a US Open. I’ve been to Whistling Straits for the PGA Championship but we all know that the PGA Championship is no US Open. It’s very unfortunate that the USGA decided to cave to the few players that complained. Fescue was cut and the full length of the course was never played. I personally like to see the US Open at around par. I prefer to see a premium on par and to have players think their way around the course instead of just throwing darts with wedges in their hands.

4. This happened Sunday but…..Brooks Koepka’s 379 yard “3-wood” (M2 16.5* HL)…..that’s disgusting.

[golfgirlrobin]

Spent most of the back nine trying to guesstimate how far away they were keeping the fans. Considering how much talk there was about how Chambers Bay was terrible for the on course fan, I was pretty surprised to see fans kept miles from fairways and perched on high points trying to see what's going on on that green way, way over there.

 

Part of making it exciting on television is incorporating the roars and reactions of the crowd. When nobody can see anything, it's hard to pick up any electricity from the crowd.

 

It's what Augusta does incredibly well. Aside from 11 and 12 greens, people are packed in close. It makes a difference.

[klebs01]

Spent most of the back nine trying to guesstimate how far away they were keeping the fans. Considering how much talk there was about how Chambers Bay was terrible for the on course fan, I was pretty surprised to see fans kept miles from fairways and perched on high points trying to see what's going on on that green way, way over there.

 

Part of making it exciting on television is incorporating the roars and reactions of the crowd. When nobody can see anything, it's hard to pick up any electricity from the crowd.

 

It's what Augusta does incredibly well. Aside from 11 and 12 greens, people are packed in close. It makes a difference.

 

Having been there, I would most likely have picked the high spots to watch even if I could stand A lot closer. . There are many high spots where there is good viewing for multiple shots without moving and that's where people gathered.

[PGArox]

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

 

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.html

 

Very impressive. 106 players get up and down at least half the time, with the leader doing it nearly 75% of time. I'd love to see how the dudes from 1960 stacked up.

[ConcentricDimples]

It was kinda cool to see the course and know you can play it on a vacation there someday.

 

Augusta? Hehe

 

Winged Foot? Nope

 

Shinnecock? Hell no

 

Merion? Not happening

 

LACC? About as likely as getting invited to the adjacent Playboy Mansion.

 

Oakmont? Nooope

 

Congressional? Nah

 

 

[Potatohead]

It was kinda cool to see the course and know you can play it on a vacation there someday.

 

Augusta? Hehe

 

Winged Foot? Nope

 

Shinnecock? Hell no

 

Merion? Not happening

 

LACC? About as likely as getting invited to the adjacent Playboy Mansion.

 

Oakmont? Nooope

 

Congressional? Nah

 

I know it will never change but this is the thing that turns me off the most about golf, 90% of the worlds best tracks the common man will never play.

[baaron008]

It was kinda cool to see the course and know you can play it on a vacation there someday.

 

Augusta? Hehe

 

Winged Foot? Nope

 

Shinnecock? Hell no

 

Merion? Not happening

 

LACC? About as likely as getting invited to the adjacent Playboy Mansion.

 

Oakmont? Nooope

 

Congressional? Nah

 

I know it will never change but this is the thing that turns me off the most about golf, 90% of the worlds best tracks the common man will never play.

 

Hell for the longest time you had to be a member of a private club to play in the USGA tournements.

[Shilgy]

It was kinda cool to see the course and know you can play it on a vacation there someday.

 

Augusta? Hehe

 

Winged Foot? Nope

 

Shinnecock? Hell no

 

Merion? Not happening

 

LACC? About as likely as getting invited to the adjacent Playboy Mansion.

 

Oakmont? Nooope

 

Congressional? Nah

 

I know it will never change but this is the thing that turns me off the most about golf, 90% of the worlds best tracks the common man will never play.

Kinda like cars, cigars, vacation resorts and homes? You can still play.

[Jasonic]

So a guy like Day does not even scare the cut and the course was easy? Some here need to let that lame argument..statement really...go. Someone gimme' a better argument with facts. What was the highest rated? Age groups? What is the avg US Open rating vs the other majors?

 

Come on, now ... when golf observers say that Erin Hills was too easy, it is a relative statement. They are comparing Erin Hills and the scores it produced, to the other U.S. Opens they have seen or read about.

 

As for Jason Day missing the cut, he would be the first to tell you the reason was not because Erin Hills was difficult, but that he played poorly.

 

 

 

"Oh Day and DJ missed the cut, how easy could it have been" has to be the dumbest rebuttal ever made in the history of arguments.

 

Is this an argument? Sounds like someone clapping with one hand. Hyperbole seems to be your strong suit. And annoyance.

[moonshine]

So a guy like Day does not even scare the cut and the course was easy? Some here need to let that lame argument..statement really...go. Someone gimme' a better argument with facts. What was the highest rated? Age groups? What is the avg US Open rating vs the other majors?

 

Come on, now ... when golf observers say that Erin Hills was too easy, it is a relative statement. They are comparing Erin Hills and the scores it produced, to the other U.S. Opens they have seen or read about.

 

As for Jason Day missing the cut, he would be the first to tell you the reason was not because Erin Hills was difficult, but that he played poorly.

 

 

 

"Oh Day and DJ missed the cut, how easy could it have been" has to be the dumbest rebuttal ever made in the history of arguments.

You added DJ, not me. It was not a rebuttal genius..I made the point earlier which you missed many were abusing the "it was easy" line.

[Bob Cat]

I'm trying to be positive as there were some cool aspects of this years open venue and coverage... but I wanted take that damn billboard plane down with a Howitzer. BzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmzzzzzzzz...

[JD3]

Don't worry. I'm sure Kohler is cooking up some dye-designed monstrosity that he "guarantees" will be the greatest championship venue in the world.

[gators78]

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

 

And I take the exact opposite view. I think if you took the bottom 50 guys in the top 100 today and plopped them down in the 70s with persimmon, balata, and sweet spots the size of dimes, they wouldn't be on Tour, they'd be folding shirts in a pro shop in Poughkeepsie. Ever see those throw-back videos where they have modern pros hit persimmon? Even using the modern ball they're not moving it out there much further than the guys in the 70s. And the guys in the 70s were using balata. The guys before the technology boom were producing commensurate scoring averages to the modern player while hitting 5 and 6 irons into the par fours and playing legitimate three-shot par fives, while the modern guys are hitting flip wedges into the par fours and rarely, if ever, playing a par five that they can't reach. So with all the modern advantages a player has, massive distance gains due to technology, pristine turf conditions, ease of travel, less financial insecurity, sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantages enable mediocre guys to stay on Tour cashing their hundred thousand dollar checks for coming in 12th or whatever. Modern players aren't as good because they don't have to be. Equipment mitigates their shortcomings and massive checks blunt their ambition.

 

Kind of an weird argument when you say players need:

 

sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantage

 

...but somehow are worse than yesterday's players. One might say they need all that because the competition is so much better.

[AaronSmart]

It was kinda cool to see the course and know you can play it on a vacation there someday.

 

Augusta? Hehe

 

Winged Foot? Nope

 

Shinnecock? Hell no

 

Merion? Not happening

 

LACC? About as likely as getting invited to the adjacent Playboy Mansion.

 

Oakmont? Nooope

 

Congressional? Nah

 

I know it will never change but this is the thing that turns me off the most about golf, 90% of the worlds best tracks the common man will never play.

 

I do agree with that, it's a bummer a golf fanatic can't go play the course, but if you scale it down, it makes sense.

 

Anyone (assuming you have some money for tickets) can go to Winged Foot, Merion or one of the top courses ever built, when the tournament comes to that course. You can then walk, enjoy, touch the grass and be apart of it, as a spectator.

 

It's no different (in fact it's better) then any other professional offering, as you won't have an opportunity to play 3rd base at a Yankee Stadium or shoot hoops at the Boston Celtics arena. Your'e restricted to a seat, not on the actual grounds.

[teejaywhy]

Third worst GolfWRX US Open thread.

 

Wondering if any of you actually PLAY golf?

[Potatohead]

It was kinda cool to see the course and know you can play it on a vacation there someday.

 

Augusta? Hehe

 

Winged Foot? Nope

 

Shinnecock? Hell no

 

Merion? Not happening

 

LACC? About as likely as getting invited to the adjacent Playboy Mansion.

 

Oakmont? Nooope

 

Congressional? Nah

 

I know it will never change but this is the thing that turns me off the most about golf, 90% of the worlds best tracks the common man will never play.

Kinda like cars, cigars, vacation resorts and homes? You can still play.

 

Yeah ok. I bet every single one of those places has "members only" on the sign and possibly a guard shack at the entrance. Unless you have an in or know the right person, you're not getting on. The most prestigious club in this area (Vancouver) I have been on once only because my old man knows a guy, and it's the same deal anywhere else. The green fee was also huge.

 

I do agree with that, it's a bummer a golf fanatic can't go play the course, but if you scale it down, it makes sense.

 

Anyone (assuming you have some money for tickets) can go to Winged Foot, Merion or one of the top courses ever built, when the tournament comes to that course. You can then walk, enjoy, touch the grass and be apart of it, as a spectator.

 

It's no different (in fact it's better) then any other professional offering, as you won't have an opportunity to play 3rd base at a Yankee Stadium or shoot hoops at the Boston Celtics arena. Your'e restricted to a seat, not on the actual grounds.

 

I couldn't really care less about walking anywhere, I want to play it. Walking it is like saying you've been to some cool city or place but in reality you just had a stopover at the airport.

[NikeNerd]

It was a major, and we had some cool people up near the top of the leaderboard, but I found myself skipping some of the tournament to go play instead, which I never do. I was not glued to the television like I was with this year's Masters or the US Open at Oakmont. It was one of the easiest US Opens ever played, and I thought the course setup gave too much of an advantage to bombers with the fairways being huge. Very happy that Koepka won, he is a fantastic player, but I'm sure Shinnecock will make for a better venue, it was tough as nails in 2004.

[Shilgy]

Very impressive. 106 players get up and down at least half the time, with the leader doing it nearly 75% of time. I'd love to see how the dudes from 1960 stacked up.

In this case I would give course conditions some of the credit. The bunkers are much more uniform week to week today than in the past. But just looking at last year versus 1980 you can see a lot of improvement.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.1980.html

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.2016.html

[Whit1969]

I know it's probably obvious, but I saw on Golf Channel that Spieth's Masters, Day's PGA, Stenson's Open, and this US Open all broke scoring records. That's great when an all timer type of player does it, but pro golf is actually not only destroying current ratings...it's ruining its History.

 

Spieth and Day were exciting wins, point given, but they've gone away. There's no staying power in 7 straight first time major champions. Brooks Koepka got 8 majors in him..? Doubt it. In fact, my money says he won't win another! So this US Open will be remembered for nothing. Not a great way to go if you're pro golf.

 

Modern day Michael Campbell

[JMoroz]

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

 

 

*You* watched the whole thing ; )

 

Yeah he watched and complained all week long about the course.

[3jacker]

But still. The right guy won.

 

The so-called greats could not hit the 60-yd wide fairways.

[youdamantiger]

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

 

And I take the exact opposite view. I think if you took the bottom 50 guys in the top 100 today and plopped them down in the 70s with persimmon, balata, and sweet spots the size of dimes, they wouldn't be on Tour, they'd be folding shirts in a pro shop in Poughkeepsie. Ever see those throw-back videos where they have modern pros hit persimmon? Even using the modern ball they're not moving it out there much further than the guys in the 70s. And the guys in the 70s were using balata. The guys before the technology boom were producing commensurate scoring averages to the modern player while hitting 5 and 6 irons into the par fours and playing legitimate three-shot par fives, while the modern guys are hitting flip wedges into the par fours and rarely, if ever, playing a par five that they can't reach. So with all the modern advantages a player has, massive distance gains due to technology, pristine turf conditions, ease of travel, less financial insecurity, sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantages enable mediocre guys to stay on Tour cashing their hundred thousand dollar checks for coming in 12th or whatever. Modern players aren't as good because they don't have to be. Equipment mitigates their shortcomings and massive checks blunt their ambition.

 

Kind of an weird argument when you say players need:

 

sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantage

 

...but somehow are worse than yesterday's players. One might say they need all that because the competition is so much better.

 

Perhaps I was imprecise in my wording. It's a point geared towards those who make the argument that if the modern top 25 player were dropped into the 70s he would dominate and win everything in sight and if a great 70s player were transported to the future he wouldn't even make the Web.com Tour. What I believe is that if you took the modern players and the players from the 70s and gave them the same equipment and conditions the players from the 70s would have the better record. I make that argument based on the fact that the modern players have all those advantages and play courses where they routinely have flip wedges into the par 4s and never play a true three shot par 5 and yet the scoring averages haven't improved all that much. If someone were producing the same results in a particular endeavor as you but they were using far superior equipment and had numerous other advantages then no one would argue that they were better than you at that particular endeavor. For me it's just a common sense observation.

[ctmason_98]

It's not rocket science, there were not a lot of names in contention that casual fans know.

 

If the final pairing was Jason Day and Rory Mcilroy , with Dustin Johnson near the lead, and Mickelson playing, they would not have been as low. The course , setup , and scores relative to par are non-factors for casual fans.

 

Exactly. Fans should be careful not to draw too many conclusions. Of course it will be used as confirmation that tougher courses would obviously lead to higher ratings. Boggles the mind.

 

And comparing ratings from 10 or more years ago is about as useful as T's on a boar.

[Shilgy]

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

 

And I take the exact opposite view. I think if you took the bottom 50 guys in the top 100 today and plopped them down in the 70s with persimmon, balata, and sweet spots the size of dimes, they wouldn't be on Tour, they'd be folding shirts in a pro shop in Poughkeepsie. Ever see those throw-back videos where they have modern pros hit persimmon? Even using the modern ball they're not moving it out there much further than the guys in the 70s. And the guys in the 70s were using balata. The guys before the technology boom were producing commensurate scoring averages to the modern player while hitting 5 and 6 irons into the par fours and playing legitimate three-shot par fives, while the modern guys are hitting flip wedges into the par fours and rarely, if ever, playing a par five that they can't reach. So with all the modern advantages a player has, massive distance gains due to technology, pristine turf conditions, ease of travel, less financial insecurity, sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantages enable mediocre guys to stay on Tour cashing their hundred thousand dollar checks for coming in 12th or whatever. Modern players aren't as good because they don't have to be. Equipment mitigates their shortcomings and massive checks blunt their ambition.

 

Kind of an weird argument when you say players need:

 

sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantage

 

...but somehow are worse than yesterday's players. One might say they need all that because the competition is so much better.

 

Perhaps I was imprecise in my wording. It's a point geared towards those who make the argument that if the modern top 25 player were dropped into the 70s he would dominate and win everything in sight and if a great 70s player were transported to the future he wouldn't even make the Web.com Tour. What I believe is that if you took the modern players and the players from the 70s and gave them the same equipment and conditions the players from the 70s would have the better record. I make that argument based on the fact that the modern players have all those advantages and play courses where they routinely have flip wedges into the par 4s and never play a true three shot par 5 and yet the scoring averages haven't improved all that much. If someone were producing the same results in a particular endeavor as you but they were using far superior equipment and had numerous other advantages then no one would argue that they were better than you at that particular endeavor. For me it's just a common sense observation.

As long as it's about beliefs are you a flat earther as well? Are they playing the same courses are those in the 70's? No they are not. The courses are longer and arguably set up more difficulty than in the past. Pins are more difficult and all shots are more precise from tighter lies. Greens are smoother of course but also much faster. Can you imagine some of the twitchy putters of the past putting on these greens? The fact that the leading scoring average has stayed the same-except for when Tiger was dominating-shows that the equipment and the course difficulty is a wash. The difference between #1 and #150 in the respective scoring averages shows how many more guys you have to beat every week to win.

In an earlier post you said Ever see those throw-back videos where they have modern pros hit persimmon? Even using the modern ball they're not moving it out there much further than the guys in the 70s That would be because the two do not mix. You cannot hit the new ball with the old equipment-particularly the woods-because the ball does not spin enough. And I guarantee you that if you gave Hogan a 460cc driver he would struggle with it-until he got used to it. Just like the modern guys would be fine with the persimmon if they played it for a while. I do not know how old you are but I played persimmon over half my golfing life. With the old ball it is not hard to play. If you can hit a hybrid you can certainly hit the driver just fine.

That said....if you drop the top players from the past they would do ok. Probably not as good as they did in their prime though as there are just so many wins to go around and there are more top quality players today.

[new2g0lf]

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

 

And I take the exact opposite view. I think if you took the bottom 50 guys in the top 100 today and plopped them down in the 70s with persimmon, balata, and sweet spots the size of dimes, they wouldn't be on Tour, they'd be folding shirts in a pro shop in Poughkeepsie. Ever see those throw-back videos where they have modern pros hit persimmon? Even using the modern ball they're not moving it out there much further than the guys in the 70s. And the guys in the 70s were using balata. The guys before the technology boom were producing commensurate scoring averages to the modern player while hitting 5 and 6 irons into the par fours and playing legitimate three-shot par fives, while the modern guys are hitting flip wedges into the par fours and rarely, if ever, playing a par five that they can't reach. So with all the modern advantages a player has, massive distance gains due to technology, pristine turf conditions, ease of travel, less financial insecurity, sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantages enable mediocre guys to stay on Tour cashing their hundred thousand dollar checks for coming in 12th or whatever. Modern players aren't as good because they don't have to be. Equipment mitigates their shortcomings and massive checks blunt their ambition.

 

Kind of an weird argument when you say players need:

 

sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantage

 

...but somehow are worse than yesterday's players. One might say they need all that because the competition is so much better.

 

Perhaps I was imprecise in my wording. It's a point geared towards those who make the argument that if the modern top 25 player were dropped into the 70s he would dominate and win everything in sight and if a great 70s player were transported to the future he wouldn't even make the Web.com Tour. What I believe is that if you took the modern players and the players from the 70s and gave them the same equipment and conditions the players from the 70s would have the better record. I make that argument based on the fact that the modern players have all those advantages and play courses where they routinely have flip wedges into the par 4s and never play a true three shot par 5 and yet the scoring averages haven't improved all that much. If someone were producing the same results in a particular endeavor as you but they were using far superior equipment and had numerous other advantages then no one would argue that they were better than you at that particular endeavor. For me it's just a common sense observation.

It's a moot point unless you know with certainty what the 70 golfers from the 70's swing speeds were. Modern equipment doesn't automatically launch drives 350 yards and make approach shots spin backwards on greens. Golfers today certainly appear to have been conditioning than those from the 70's.