Lanny Wadkins firing a SHOT!

[krtgolfing]

People can say what the want. The players now a days hit the ball longer and are more athletic. Also the golf courses have gotten harder. While the top 3 players from that generation are better than the top 3 players from this generation, it would be closer than the way Lanny it making it out to be.

[south_side_lefty]

During the 1963 PGA Championship, a long drive competition was held. Jack hit one 341.

 

I don't remember the tournament, but both Jack and Arnie drove a 330 yard par 4.

 

It was said Adam Snead could occasionally drive the ball over 300.

 

In any event we will never know if what Lanny said is true. All we can do is speculate, without any resolution.

 

I can't believe we went like a whole page without anybody giving Sean some crap over 'Adam Snead'. :cheesy:

[Hardluckster]

First of all, comparisons of athletes in any sport across generations is impossible. Discussions about it, while entertaining, are quite simply exercises in futility. All in my opinion, of course.

 

There are some facts that are irrefutable: there are more competitors today, training is better today, equipment is better today, prize winnings are much more today, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

 

The one big intangible that can never be measured (or proven), however, is what I call 'heart'. You could label it with terms which as 'will to win', 'hunger', 'competitiveness' or any myriad of other phrases.

 

Whatever name you give it, though, it is the single most important factor to success - in any endeavor.

 

Having coached basketball on the high school level for many years, I offer a personal example: one of the best high school basketball players that I ever coached wasn't even close to being one of the best basketball talents that I ever coached. He wasn't a great athlete, he wasn't really fast or quick, he was average height, he wasn't stronger than the other kids, he wasn't a great ball handler, and he wasn't a really good shooter. What he did have, though, was a will to win that was unsurpassed - he would do whatever was physically possible for him to do in order to get the W. He actually went on to play at a small college for two years.

 

I've coached hundreds of high school athletes - a great many of them who had the talent but never had the opportunity to play at the next level. Most of them were much more talented than this young man. They didn't have that intangible 'never lose' attitude, though.

 

There is no way to compare this across different generations of athletes, and as far as I'm concerned it is quite possibly the most important of all aspects of being great at anything, not just sports.

[deadsolid...shank]

I think Steve Kerr said it best..."They're all right," Kerr said. "They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."

 

Why do people continue to compare basketball to golf? Where size and pure athleticism is so paramount. If that pertained to golf, why then aren't the top players all 6'6'' or 6'7"?

 

You can't deny that athleticism and strength play a role in golf, it isn't nearly as important as in basketball, but it does factor in.

 

And really I was only using the quote to suggest that the comparisons of today vs previous generations happens in all sports, and usually breaks down the same way - those in their prime in the previous generation always seem to think they were better than today's best and vice versa.

 

Yes, comparisons between generations will go on forever. :) Much of it is nostalgia, we glamorize those who were the stars for us. I'll always be a huge Larry Bird fan, but realize the difference in size and speed across the board now in the NBA.

 

But golf, that's still different (although sure, being bigger and stronger certainly can't hurt). But if you took guys from past generations (I'm thinking guys like Jack and Arnold) and availed them of the advanced training techniques available now, especially starting very young like they do now, they would be just as strong and fit as anyone out there now (not as tall, can't coach or train that:) ). Just like I'm sure guys from the generations before Jack and Arnold would have been quite comparable is they had had Jack and Arnie's resources.

[Shilgy]

I think Steve Kerr said it best..."They're all right," Kerr said. "They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."

 

Why do people continue to compare basketball to golf? Where size and pure athleticism is so paramount. If that pertained to golf, why then aren't the top players all 6'6'' or 6'7"?

Why do some folks think golf is the only sport it does NOT matter? Back in the 70's and 80's the "ideal golfer" was 5'10'.

All I know is that persimmon woods died a very quick death after Taylor Made introduced their metal woods.

I played persimmon half my golfing life. This difficult to hit business is wayyyyy overblown. They are harder to hit far but easier to hit straight.

[Wooderson]

I think Steve Kerr said it best..."They're all right," Kerr said. "They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."

 

Why do people continue to compare basketball to golf? Where size and pure athleticism is so paramount. If that pertained to golf, why then aren't the top players all 6'6'' or 6'7"?

 

Have you not noticed that the better golfers are bigger and more athletic these days? It is a natural evolution.

[bigred90gt]

I totally agree with Lanny Wadkins. The players from his era, and previous eras, were generally much better ball-strikers than the majority of todays players.

Try hitting a persimmon (or laminate) driver from the 80's or before. It requires a considerably more precise technique than often seen today.

Also, yes, they had to actually win tournaments to be able to live on tour, 20th place just wouldn't earn enough money.

I read somewhere that Miller won 3 straight in 74 maybe, shot like -70 in those 3 tournaments, made less than 100K.....It was a different world, for sure.....

 

Average cost of a new car in 1974 was $3700 and median home price was $37000. Gas was not much more than $0.25/gallon. You could buy a weeks worth of groceries for your family for what, $20 tops? It was a different world, but don't let them fool you. Of course they didn't make the money they do now, and even accounting for inflation it wasn't comparable, but they weren't struggling.

 

$100,000 in 1974 is equivalent to a little over $500,000 today. Median income then was less than $10k.

[bervin]

Let me see if I’ve got this right?

We have the self-proclaimed Speith-hater, as usual just here to rouse the crowd, and the “old guard” making yet another appearance to show they are still live and well. Thus is evidenced by the insinuations that -

 

Players of today are:

• soft and don’t want to win
  
• spoiled from all the incredible technology
  
• don’t have the statically-driven career success that the boys of old had
  
• are worse ball-strikers as a result of not playing with the more difficult tech of the wonder years
  
• mentally weak with a blatant disadvantage in the psychological department
  
• no bigger, faster or stronger than those from eras prior
  
• afforded an inordinate amount of (more) time to practice
  
• don’t hit the ball any further than the real players from a time of greater golf
  
• and get off my lawn
  

 

Players of yesteryear are:

• Invariably more talented
  
• Played under undoubtedly tougher circumstances
  
• And everything opposite of the mental, physical and otherwise inferior characteristics of the modern era golfer
  

 

The idea that today’s golfers couldn’t compete, or even simply aren’t as good as the players of years past so many romanticize about is silly. It hasn’t even been mentioned how much tougher today’s tracks are for the tour pro. The competition is actually tougher to even make it to the tour, let alone be successful there as a result of the evolution of the game. And, today’s players are not bigger, faster, and stronger? That’s just a purely incorrect notion that is debunked by many different accredited and scientific-methodology-based comparative studies.

 

I’ll never understand why the golf curmudgeons insist on preserving what they view as the romantic era of golf… Isn’t it better to embrace innovation, accept and encourage change in an effort to grow the game? I don’t know what golf will look like in 10 years, but I hope my kids are interested in it! I love and appreciate watching and reading about Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogen, Hagen, etc. etc. etc… But at some point the old guard should lay down their swords and accept the reality.

 

Damn Lanny Wadkins! Stop campaigning to be the face of the Old Guard!

[Shilgy]

The whole "hungry and had to win" is bull. Today you had better be hungry and work at it or 500 guys will eagerly jump your spot on tour.

[deadsolid...shank]

I think Steve Kerr said it best..."They're all right," Kerr said. "They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."

 

Why do people continue to compare basketball to golf? Where size and pure athleticism is so paramount. If that pertained to golf, why then aren't the top players all 6'6'' or 6'7"?

 

Have you not noticed that the better golfers are bigger and more athletic these days? It is a natural evolution.

 

Some are, some aren't. DJ is, Spieth isnt', Rory is far from bigger. I do believe they are getting taller, but isn't society as a whole getting taller?

 

More athletic, I don't necessarily think so. I think athletic ability is latent, its there in people. Its just developed and refined better and earlier now.

[PowderedToastMan]

I think Steve Kerr said it best..."They're all right," Kerr said. "They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."

 

Why do people continue to compare basketball to golf? Where size and pure athleticism is so paramount. If that pertained to golf, why then aren't the top players all 6'6'' or 6'7"?

 

Have you not noticed that the better golfers are bigger and more athletic these days? It is a natural evolution.

I'm not sure there's ever been a more athletic golfer than Sam Snead. He wasn't a small guy either.

 

The US Open this year showed the difference athleticism plays in golf. Brooks Koepka barely beat a short hitting, five foot nothing, 1 win Brian Harman. If you practice like LeBron James, you'll be great, but being 6'8 260 and mobile like a guard won't help you in golf. But man, he could sure run from shot to shot fast.

[ebrasmus21]

I've already used this once this week but, Lanny, you've forced my hand:

 

[deadsolid...shank]

The whole "hungry and had to win" is bull. Today you had better be hungry and work at it or 500 guys will eagerly jump your spot on tour.

 

Of course they're hungry. And work their tails off. And there is always somebody ready to take their spot. Has anyone ever said they don't?

 

But, if you just make the tour now, how much is that card worth? Years back (probably 10-15ish) we had a local pro make it through Q school. His brother said that card was probably worth $250,000 to him.

 

Point is, they don't have (or even need) to win today to make a very lucrative living.

[deadsolid...shank]

Let me see if I’ve got this right?

We have the self-proclaimed Speith-hater, as usual just here to rouse the crowd, and the “old guard” making yet another appearance to show they are still live and well. Thus is evidenced by the insinuations that -

 

Players of today are:

• soft and don’t want to win
  
• spoiled from all the incredible technology
  
• don’t have the statically-driven career success that the boys of old had
  
• are worse ball-strikers as a result of not playing with the more difficult tech of the wonder years
  
• mentally weak with a blatant disadvantage in the psychological department
  
• no bigger, faster or stronger than those from eras prior
  
• afforded an inordinate amount of (more) time to practice
  
• don’t hit the ball any further than the real players from a time of greater golf
  
• and get off my lawn
  

Players of yesteryear are:

• Invariably more talented
  
• Played under undoubtedly tougher circumstances
  
• And everything opposite of the mental, physical and otherwise inferior characteristics of the modern era golfer
  

 

The idea that today’s golfers couldn’t compete, or even simply aren’t as good as the players of years past so many romanticize about is silly. It hasn’t even been mentioned how much tougher today’s tracks are for the tour pro. The competition is actually tougher to even make it to the tour, let alone be successful there as a result of the evolution of the game. And, today’s players are not bigger, faster, and stronger? That’s just a purely incorrect notion that is debunked by many different accredited and scientific-methodology-based comparative studies. Again, relevance?

 

I’ll never understand why the golf curmudgeons insist on preserving what they view as the romantic era of golf… Isn’t it better to embrace innovation, accept and encourage change in an effort to grow the game? I don’t know what golf will look like in 10 years, but I hope my kids are interested in it! I love and appreciate watching and reading about Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogen, Hagen, etc. etc. etc… But at some point the old guard should lay down their swords and accept the reality.

So, what is the reality?

 

Damn Lanny Wadkins! Stop campaigning to be the face of the Old Guard!

[ebrasmus21]

Out of curiosity I did a three-second google search for average stimpmeter pga tour 1970 and found something that said greens ran between 6 and 8. Now what do we see? 11.5+. What is it even like putting on a shag carpet?

 

I really DON'T F*CKING CARE if the old guys were better or worse. I'm not sure how it matters, whatsoever. When I'm old I hope I don't make a fool of myself like some of these older guys do.

 

Lastly, I think the gist of what Kerr was getting at is true. Over the past 100 years (or whatever) I don't think there has been a regression in abilities for any professional sport. Tennis players aren't getting worse. Football players aren't getting worse. Basketball players aren't getting worse.

[deadsolid...shank]

Out of curiosity I did a three-second google search for average stimpmeter pga tour 1970 and found something that said greens ran between 6 and 8. Now what do we see? 11.5+. What is it even like putting on a shag carpet?

 

I really DON'T F*CKING CARE if the old guys were better or worse. I'm not sure how it matters, whatsoever. When I'm old I hope I don't make a fool of myself like some of these older guys do.

 

Lastly, I think the gist of what Kerr was getting at is true. Over the past 100 years (or whatever) I don't think there has been a regression in abilities for any professional sport. Tennis players aren't getting worse. Football players aren't getting worse. Basketball players aren't getting worse.

 

Do you make more putts on fast, perfectly manicured greens, or slow bumpy ones?

 

Do a poll of every good player you know, I bet you have damn near a 100% say it's easier to make putts on that 11.5 stimping green.

[ebrasmus21]

Out of curiosity I did a three-second google search for average stimpmeter pga tour 1970 and found something that said greens ran between 6 and 8. Now what do we see? 11.5+. What is it even like putting on a shag carpet?

 

I really DON'T F*CKING CARE if the old guys were better or worse. I'm not sure how it matters, whatsoever. When I'm old I hope I don't make a fool of myself like some of these older guys do.

 

Lastly, I think the gist of what Kerr was getting at is true. Over the past 100 years (or whatever) I don't think there has been a regression in abilities for any professional sport. Tennis players aren't getting worse. Football players aren't getting worse. Basketball players aren't getting worse.

 

Do you make more putts on fast, perfectly manicured greens, or slow bumpy ones?

 

Do a poll of every good player you know, I bet you have damn near a 100% say it's easier to make putts on that 11.5 stimping green.

 

How about scrambling? Still easy on 11.5+ ?

[bervin]

Let me see if I’ve got this right?

We have the self-proclaimed Speith-hater, as usual just here to rouse the crowd, and the “old guard” making yet another appearance to show they are still live and well. Thus is evidenced by the insinuations that -

 

Players of today are:

• soft and don’t want to win
  
• spoiled from all the incredible technology
  
• don’t have the statically-driven career success that the boys of old had
  
• are worse ball-strikers as a result of not playing with the more difficult tech of the wonder years
  
• mentally weak with a blatant disadvantage in the psychological department
  
• no bigger, faster or stronger than those from eras prior
  
• afforded an inordinate amount of (more) time to practice
  
• don’t hit the ball any further than the real players from a time of greater golf
  
• and get off my lawn
  

Players of yesteryear are:

• Invariably more talented
  
• Played under undoubtedly tougher circumstances
  
• And everything opposite of the mental, physical and otherwise inferior characteristics of the modern era golfer
  

The idea that today’s golfers couldn’t compete, or even simply aren’t as good as the players of years past so many romanticize about is silly. It hasn’t even been mentioned how much tougher today’s tracks are for the tour pro. The competition is actually tougher to even make it to the tour, let alone be successful there as a result of the evolution of the game. And, today’s players are not bigger, faster, and stronger? That’s just a purely incorrect notion that is debunked by many different accredited and scientific-methodology-based comparative studies. Again, relevance?

 

I’ll never understand why the golf curmudgeons insist on preserving what they view as the romantic era of golf… Isn’t it better to embrace innovation, accept and encourage change in an effort to grow the game? I don’t know what golf will look like in 10 years, but I hope my kids are interested in it! I love and appreciate watching and reading about Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogen, Hagen, etc. etc. etc… But at some point the old guard should lay down their swords and accept the reality.

So, what is the reality?

 

Damn Lanny Wadkins! Stop campaigning to be the face of the Old Guard!

 

Faster, is one piece (in a frequently used saying, btw - kinda odd call out on your part here) in a larger discussion of the evolution of fitness, athleticism, flexibility, and other similar characteristics have evolved over time. Not only on a fundamentally human level, but also through innovations in the exercise, physical fitness/wellness industry (there are major advances in the mental wellness industry as well, btw) that DO MATTER in sports today. Specific to golf, Swing spped is a critical enabler to compete at the top level. IDK of any references here (fair disclaimer) but I would venture to say its not out of this world to assume SS has increased between then and now. And this is ONE example, please note.

 

The reality is simple, I am glad you asked. The reality is it doesn't matter who was "better" between previous generations and today. The point of greater significance is the growth (not preservation) of golf. As advances, innovations, changes, etc. arise in the sport of Golf, I BELIEVE (again, fair disclaimer) that those who so diligently want to sustain an era in which they romanticize about, should put that type of thinking to the side in order to allow for growth for the betterment of the game. I mean listen to an ESPN coverage of anything to do with baseball today. It’s always “how to fix baseball”. I don’t want golf to be that way… do you?

[MK7Golf21]

I think Steve Kerr said it best..."They're all right," Kerr said. "They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the '50s would've destroyed everybody. It's weird how human evolution goes reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don't know. I can't explain it."

 

Why do people continue to compare basketball to golf? Where size and pure athleticism is so paramount. If that pertained to golf, why then aren't the top players all 6'6'' or 6'7"?

 

Have you not noticed that the better golfers are bigger and more athletic these days? It is a natural evolution.

I'm not sure there's ever been a more athletic golfer than Sam Snead. He wasn't a small guy either.

 

The US Open this year showed the difference athleticism plays in golf. Brooks Koepka barely beat a short hitting, five foot nothing, 1 win Brian Harman. If you practice like LeBron James, you'll be great, but being 6'8 260 and mobile like a guard won't help you in golf. But man, he could sure run from shot to shot fast.

 

 

It was predicted that a long hitter would win on the course. Brian Harmon isn't a long hitter but he plays extremely well into the wind, only reason he got close is because of his wind skills and the course played soft. Keopka has athleticism and strength which helped him, if you don't have that your going to need some other special qualities and ideal conditions for courses like these.

[rgk5]

I agree with Lanny 100%. Clubs of their era took a lot more skill to hit than the equipment in use today. Take a persimmon out to the range for a few laps and see what you think. I recently grabbed an old Ping eye 2 persimmon driver out of my father in laws garage. It's a yuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference.

 

Eye 2 drivers were laminated maple, not persimmon, as were the Zing woods.

[deadsolid...shank]

Out of curiosity I did a three-second google search for average stimpmeter pga tour 1970 and found something that said greens ran between 6 and 8. Now what do we see? 11.5+. What is it even like putting on a shag carpet?

 

I really DON'T F*CKING CARE if the old guys were better or worse. I'm not sure how it matters, whatsoever. When I'm old I hope I don't make a fool of myself like some of these older guys do.

 

Lastly, I think the gist of what Kerr was getting at is true. Over the past 100 years (or whatever) I don't think there has been a regression in abilities for any professional sport. Tennis players aren't getting worse. Football players aren't getting worse. Basketball players aren't getting worse.

 

Do you make more putts on fast, perfectly manicured greens, or slow bumpy ones?

 

Do a poll of every good player you know, I bet you have damn near a 100% say it's easier to make putts on that 11.5 stimping green.

 

How about scrambling? Still easy on 11.5+ ?

 

Isn't putting a big part of scrambling? And I didn't say easy, I said easier.

[2putttom]

First of all, comparisons of athletes in any sport across generations is impossible. Discussions about it, while entertaining, are quite simply exercises in futility. All in my opinion, of course.

 

There are some facts that are irrefutable: there are more competitors today, training is better today, equipment is better today, prize winnings are much more today, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

 

The one big intangible that can never be measured (or proven), however, is what I call 'heart'. You could label it with terms which as 'will to win', 'hunger', 'competitiveness' or any myriad of other phrases.

 

Whatever name you give it, though, it is the single most important factor to success - in any endeavor.

 

Having coached basketball on the high school level for many years, I offer a personal example: one of the best high school basketball players that I ever coached wasn't even close to being one of the best basketball talents that I ever coached. He wasn't a great athlete, he wasn't really fast or quick, he was average height, he wasn't stronger than the other kids, he wasn't a great ball handler, and he wasn't a really good shooter. What he did have, though, was a will to win that was unsurpassed - he would do whatever was physically possible for him to do in order to get the W. He actually went on to play at a small college for two years.

 

I've coached hundreds of high school athletes - a great many of them who had the talent but never had the opportunity to play at the next level. Most of them were much more talented than this young man. They didn't have that intangible 'never lose' attitude, though.

 

There is no way to compare this across different generations of athletes, and as far as I'm concerned it is quite possibly the most important of all aspects of being great at anything, not just sports.

remind me to never ask you what time it is.

[deadsolid...shank]

Let me see if I’ve got this right?

We have the self-proclaimed Speith-hater, as usual just here to rouse the crowd, and the “old guard” making yet another appearance to show they are still live and well. Thus is evidenced by the insinuations that -

 

Players of today are:

• soft and don’t want to win
  
• spoiled from all the incredible technology
  
• don’t have the statically-driven career success that the boys of old had
  
• are worse ball-strikers as a result of not playing with the more difficult tech of the wonder years
  
• mentally weak with a blatant disadvantage in the psychological department
  
• no bigger, faster or stronger than those from eras prior
  
• afforded an inordinate amount of (more) time to practice
  
• don’t hit the ball any further than the real players from a time of greater golf
  
• and get off my lawn
  

Players of yesteryear are:

• Invariably more talented
  
• Played under undoubtedly tougher circumstances
  
• And everything opposite of the mental, physical and otherwise inferior characteristics of the modern era golfer
  

The idea that today’s golfers couldn’t compete, or even simply aren’t as good as the players of years past so many romanticize about is silly. It hasn’t even been mentioned how much tougher today’s tracks are for the tour pro. The competition is actually tougher to even make it to the tour, let alone be successful there as a result of the evolution of the game. And, today’s players are not bigger, faster, and stronger? That’s just a purely incorrect notion that is debunked by many different accredited and scientific-methodology-based comparative studies. Again, relevance?

 

I’ll never understand why the golf curmudgeons insist on preserving what they view as the romantic era of golf… Isn’t it better to embrace innovation, accept and encourage change in an effort to grow the game? I don’t know what golf will look like in 10 years, but I hope my kids are interested in it! I love and appreciate watching and reading about Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogen, Hagen, etc. etc. etc… But at some point the old guard should lay down their swords and accept the reality.

So, what is the reality?

 

Damn Lanny Wadkins! Stop campaigning to be the face of the Old Guard!

 

Faster, is one piece (in a frequently used saying, btw - kinda odd call out on your part here) in a larger discussion of the evolution of fitness, athleticism, flexibility, and other similar characteristics have evolved over time. Not only on a fundamentally human level, but also through innovations in the exercise, physical fitness/wellness industry (there are major advances in the mental wellness industry as well, btw) that DO MATTER in sports today. Specific to golf, Swing spped is a critical enabler to compete at the top level. IDK of any references here (fair disclaimer) but I would venture to say its not out of this world to assume SS has increased between then and now. And this is ONE example, please note.

 

The reality is simple, I am glad you asked. The reality is it doesn't matter who was "better" between previous generations and today. The point of greater significance is the growth (not preservation) of golf. As advances, innovations, changes, etc. arise in the sport of Golf, I BELIEVE (again, fair disclaimer) that those who so diligently want to sustain an era in which they romanticize about, should put that type of thinking to the side in order to allow for growth for the betterment of the game. I mean listen to an ESPN coverage of anything to do with baseball today. It’s always “how to fix baseball”. I don’t want golf to be that way… do you?

 

Well said, good post. It was poor of me to just pick out the speed part.

[bervin]

Let me see if I’ve got this right?

We have the self-proclaimed Speith-hater, as usual just here to rouse the crowd, and the “old guard” making yet another appearance to show they are still live and well. Thus is evidenced by the insinuations that -

 

Players of today are:

• soft and don’t want to win
  
• spoiled from all the incredible technology
  
• don’t have the statically-driven career success that the boys of old had
  
• are worse ball-strikers as a result of not playing with the more difficult tech of the wonder years
  
• mentally weak with a blatant disadvantage in the psychological department
  
• no bigger, faster or stronger than those from eras prior
  
• afforded an inordinate amount of (more) time to practice
  
• don’t hit the ball any further than the real players from a time of greater golf
  
• and get off my lawn
  

Players of yesteryear are:

• Invariably more talented
  
• Played under undoubtedly tougher circumstances
  
• And everything opposite of the mental, physical and otherwise inferior characteristics of the modern era golfer
  

The idea that today’s golfers couldn’t compete, or even simply aren’t as good as the players of years past so many romanticize about is silly. It hasn’t even been mentioned how much tougher today’s tracks are for the tour pro. The competition is actually tougher to even make it to the tour, let alone be successful there as a result of the evolution of the game. And, today’s players are not bigger, faster, and stronger? That’s just a purely incorrect notion that is debunked by many different accredited and scientific-methodology-based comparative studies. Again, relevance?

 

I’ll never understand why the golf curmudgeons insist on preserving what they view as the romantic era of golf… Isn’t it better to embrace innovation, accept and encourage change in an effort to grow the game? I don’t know what golf will look like in 10 years, but I hope my kids are interested in it! I love and appreciate watching and reading about Nicklaus, Palmer, Hogen, Hagen, etc. etc. etc… But at some point the old guard should lay down their swords and accept the reality.

So, what is the reality?

 

Damn Lanny Wadkins! Stop campaigning to be the face of the Old Guard!

 

Faster, is one piece (in a frequently used saying, btw - kinda odd call out on your part here) in a larger discussion of the evolution of fitness, athleticism, flexibility, and other similar characteristics have evolved over time. Not only on a fundamentally human level, but also through innovations in the exercise, physical fitness/wellness industry (there are major advances in the mental wellness industry as well, btw) that DO MATTER in sports today. Specific to golf, Swing spped is a critical enabler to compete at the top level. IDK of any references here (fair disclaimer) but I would venture to say its not out of this world to assume SS has increased between then and now. And this is ONE example, please note.

 

The reality is simple, I am glad you asked. The reality is it doesn't matter who was "better" between previous generations and today. The point of greater significance is the growth (not preservation) of golf. As advances, innovations, changes, etc. arise in the sport of Golf, I BELIEVE (again, fair disclaimer) that those who so diligently want to sustain an era in which they romanticize about, should put that type of thinking to the side in order to allow for growth for the betterment of the game. I mean listen to an ESPN coverage of anything to do with baseball today. It’s always “how to fix baseball”. I don’t want golf to be that way… do you?

 

Well said, good post. It was poor of me to just pick out the speed part.

 

No worries, I mixed a little sarcasm and seriousness together in my OP. Usually a tough combination to employ effectively, lol.

[ex0dus]

The comparisons to the NBA are nonsense. Discrimination prevented a lot of good black players from playing college ball and of course following that up to the NBA. Now the majority of NBA players are black.

 

Personally I think it is pointless trying to compare players that never competed with each other. But when 59 year old Tom Watson finishes 2nd in the Open, then top 30 in the US Open the following year, I have a hard time swallowing the argument that today's players are so much better.

[ex0dus]

All I know is that persimmon woods died a very quick death after Taylor Made introduced their metal woods.

 

I remember hitting the original TM tour spoon freshman year in college. I was just killing it, knocking it past my persimmon driver. I couldn't believe how easy it was to hit.

 

I look at the tour spoon now and wonder how I could play with a club so small lol.

[ebrasmus21]

Out of curiosity I did a three-second google search for average stimpmeter pga tour 1970 and found something that said greens ran between 6 and 8. Now what do we see? 11.5+. What is it even like putting on a shag carpet?

 

I really DON'T F*CKING CARE if the old guys were better or worse. I'm not sure how it matters, whatsoever. When I'm old I hope I don't make a fool of myself like some of these older guys do.

 

Lastly, I think the gist of what Kerr was getting at is true. Over the past 100 years (or whatever) I don't think there has been a regression in abilities for any professional sport. Tennis players aren't getting worse. Football players aren't getting worse. Basketball players aren't getting worse.

 

Do you make more putts on fast, perfectly manicured greens, or slow bumpy ones?

 

Do a poll of every good player you know, I bet you have damn near a 100% say it's easier to make putts on that 11.5 stimping green.

 

How about scrambling? Still easy on 11.5+ ?

 

Isn't putting a big part of scrambling? And I didn't say easy, I said easier.

 

I stand corrected, scrambling is easier today than the days of yesteryear.

[deadsolid...shank]

Out of curiosity I did a three-second google search for average stimpmeter pga tour 1970 and found something that said greens ran between 6 and 8. Now what do we see? 11.5+. What is it even like putting on a shag carpet?

 

I really DON'T F*CKING CARE if the old guys were better or worse. I'm not sure how it matters, whatsoever. When I'm old I hope I don't make a fool of myself like some of these older guys do.

 

Lastly, I think the gist of what Kerr was getting at is true. Over the past 100 years (or whatever) I don't think there has been a regression in abilities for any professional sport. Tennis players aren't getting worse. Football players aren't getting worse. Basketball players aren't getting worse.

 

Do you make more putts on fast, perfectly manicured greens, or slow bumpy ones?

 

Do a poll of every good player you know, I bet you have damn near a 100% say it's easier to make putts on that 11.5 stimping green.

 

How about scrambling? Still easy on 11.5+ ?

 

Isn't putting a big part of scrambling? And I didn't say easy, I said easier.

 

I stand corrected, scrambling is easier today than the days of yesteryear.

 

You're sure doing a good job of stretching my simple question into something more complex. "Do you make more putts on fast, perfectly manicured greens, or slow bumpy ones?" That was the question (although I did also suggest the poll).

 

Although I will concede that at the amateur level greens of that speed can be intimidating. But the pros play on lightening fast greens on a regular basis. And with the way they roll it so well, faster greens are going to be much better than the slow bumpy ones. Those putts on the fast greens, if they pick and start it on the correct line, it will roll true.

 

But those slow bumpy greens? They have to hit it harder which makes it more likely to be offline. Plus just the bounces they will get on a less pure green.

 

On a good green, you're more likely to get the result you deserved from your stroke. On the slow one, much more subjective to the irregularities of the surface.

[Shilgy]

 

Isn't putting a big part of scrambling? And I didn't say easy, I said easier.

 

I stand corrected, scrambling is easier today than the days of yesteryear.

Putting may be a bit easier to make putts but more difficult to lag putts with the higher speeds of greens. Chipping and pitching around the greens is much easier with slower greens.

[darredondo09]

The comparisons to the NBA are nonsense. Discrimination prevented a lot of good black players from playing college ball and of course following that up to the NBA. Now the majority of NBA players are black.

 

Personally I think it is pointless trying to compare players that never competed with each other. But when 59 year old Tom Watson finishes 2nd in the Open, then top 30 in the US Open the following year, I have a hard time swallowing the argument that today's players are so much better.

 

Doesn't the discrimination argument work for golf too?