Lanny Wadkins firing a SHOT!

[new2g0lf]

Yea, Gretzky wouldn't be scoring 90 goals a season, but he would absolutely easily still be an all-star mentioned in the same breath with Crosby and Ovechkin if he played today. The game may be much tougher now but he'd still be bagging 40+ goals, 60+ assists every year, maybe more. Gretzky was scoring 25 goals, assisting 70 in the late 90s when he was in his late 30s.

 

Second liner? That's easily the craziest thing said on this thread so far. Jaromir Jagr was 44 two years ago and he notched 66 pts. Gretzky's skills were bonkers. Just because he dominated a soft era in the game, doesn't mean he wouldn't succeed today.

 

The game changed, defense has changed, goalies are better and players are better skaters. That said Gretzky would still be a top player if he played on teams with comparable talent to what he did in the years he played.

[MadGolfer76]

I think the bigger issue is which era course condition and setup would the players be playing? I think that is the bigger factor than equipment or ability level.

[Swoosh-Thud]

Fairways and greens. Their skill set was much better than the current players.

 

My point being that you never really controlled the balata ball, you simply managed the spin, which meant you had a great set of hands.

 

It has nothing to do with the athlete. The question is about equipment. Give a professional better equipment he'll play better.

 

Today's ball makes golf frankly uninteresting- ball goes straight. BORING. No matter how bad you swing- it goes straight.

 

That is the reason the old timers would eat these guys for lunch- fairways and greens.

 

And....agronomy.....and mowers....and water.........back in the day they didn't care about angle in to greens- if there was a green patch of fairway they'd hit it there in order to get a better lie than off a thin crusty lie.

 

The current golfers may be stronger, etc, but the skill set of the older guys is simply better. They had to be better because of the equipment they had to play with.

 

And they're a lot more interesting than the poosies we have today. No I'll take a crusty smoking, whiskey drinkin, skirt chasin, red eyed old bastxxx from the past over any of these delicate girly-men on tour today.

 

Easy money.....

[sekrah]

Yea, Gretzky wouldn't be scoring 90 goals a season, but he would absolutely easily still be an all-star mentioned in the same breath with Crosby and Ovechkin if he played today. The game may be much tougher now but he'd still be bagging 40+ goals, 60+ assists every year, maybe more. Gretzky was scoring 25 goals, assisting 70 in the late 90s when he was in his late 30s.

 

Second liner? That's easily the craziest thing said on this thread so far. Jaromir Jagr was 44 two years ago and he notched 66 pts. Gretzky's skills were bonkers. Just because he dominated a soft era in the game, doesn't mean he wouldn't succeed today.

 

The game changed, defense has changed, goalies are better and players are better skaters. That said Gretzky would still be a top player if he played on teams with comparable talent to what he did in the years he played.

 

Agreed. Gretzky was the smartest player to ever play the game, the greatest passer to ever play the game, and his shot was hard and pin-point accurate. Anyone who doesn't think he'd figure out a way to be an all-star today is nuts.

[ode1]

It's a cheap shot....if he thinks his gen is all that cool, but it's a back handed compliment which they don't need and a slight on the current players that wasnt necessary. IMO the comment has no relevance!

[cdnglf]

Times change. Athletes get bigger, stronger and faster in every sport. The athlete of today is FAR superior to the athlete of 30-50 years ago. It isn't even close.

 

I was flipping channels recently and came across the NHL all star game from 1981. The quality of play was horrific. It seriously looked like a mediocre Junior college game, and these were the all stars.Gretzky would be a second line utility player.

 

Gretzky would still be the best player in the game, just by not as much.

 

Zero chance of this. He would be a 2nd liner. If you think I am crazy, go search youtube and watch games from the early 80's when he was in his prime.

 

Don't watch it as a fan, watch it as somebody assessing talent. Like a coach would do at a tryout. Notice:

• The lack of speed in the game across players
  
• The inferior skating ability across players
  
• The lack of puck-handling skills across players
  
• The fact that goalies wore equipment that was much smaller YET much heavier
  
• Notice how most goalies just kind of stand there, apprehensive to get into a butterfly. They literally just stand there and try and make kick saves by firing their leg out. Goalies were horrific back then compared to goalies of today.
  

Watch the game as someone assessing talent. Then go pick a game from this year and watch that. As a coach assessing talent, you can look at games from that timeframe and watch games from today and compare players across all the core skills you would evaluate them on in a tryout.

 

Any objective analysis of skills will result in a determination that players from the 70's and 80's are incredibly inferior to players of today.

 

A random game I grabbed form 1980:

 

These guys suck.

 

Compare that to the 2017 NCAA championship game:

https://www.youtube....h?v=hqs1yxbmuCo

 

Notice the difference across all fundamental skills. And these are college kids of which the vast majority will not make it to the show. We are comparing the college kids of today to NHL players from 1980. The college kids win.

 

 

To try to make a point you made about Gretzky, you include a video... that does not include Gretzky? Well done.

 

At Waynes' peak, he was miles ahead of everyone else. The gap between him and everyone else was vast - way bigger than the gap between Conor/Sidney and whoever you consider to be #3 today. Eventually Mario showed up, and it was the two of them. Mario is the only player in the last 40 years who was close to as good as Wayne.

 

Wayne only retired 18 years ago - there are still a few guys in the league that played against him. Mario only retired 11 years ago, and was still a very effective player in his late 30s (when he could play). We're not talking about Aurele Joliat here.

[new2g0lf]

Fairways and greens. Their skill set was much better than the current players.

 

My point being that you never really controlled the balata ball, you simply managed the spin, which meant you had a great set of hands.

 

It has nothing to do with the athlete. The question is about equipment. Give a professional better equipment he'll play better.

 

Today's ball makes golf frankly uninteresting- ball goes straight. BORING. No matter how bad you swing- it goes straight.

 

That is the reason the old timers would eat these guys for lunch- fairways and greens.

 

And....agronomy.....and mowers....and water.........back in the day they didn't care about angle in to greens- if there was a green patch of fairway they'd hit it there in order to get a better lie than off a thin crusty lie.

 

The current golfers may be stronger, etc, but the skill set of the older guys is simply better. They had to be better because of the equipment they had to play with.

 

And they're a lot more interesting than the poosies we have today. No I'll take a crusty smoking, whiskey drinkin, skirt chasin, red eyed old bastxxx from the past over any of these delicate girly-men on tour today.

 

Easy money.....

 

The old timers played with different equipment but that doesn't mean they were better. Even with modern equipment they would struggle today with distance, their swings were built based on the playing characteristics of the equipment they used.

[buckeyefl]

It's a cheap shot....if he thinks his gen is all that cool, but it's a back handed compliment which they don't need and a slight on the current players that wasnt necessary. IMO the comment has no relevance!

 

And if people had listened to all of his comments you would see that was not the case. He was simply being honest and it should be refreshing. Nick Price said years ago that if the players of today had to use the same equipment he and those ahead of him had to use that half of them wouldn't be on tour because their ball striking is lacking.

[youngwaldo]

Someone explain to me why hitting a persimmon driver is harder than hitting a modern three or five wood.

 

Because the persimmon drivers you have to hit it on the screws but the modern 3 or 5 don't have them. Easy Jackson.

 

Wk

[TollBros]

It's just like the argument of this Warrior's team beating Jordan's Bulls. Of course Lanny is partial, but we'll never know............

 

Let's not get crazy now. Haha

[MtlJeff]

In several sports where there are measurables (track and field certainly) the records are being broken , you see very few that hold up for 30-40yrs. People get better at things, the more people do something and the more they practice (money drives this) the better they get.

 

There's a saying that records are made to be broken. I think many feel the saying in golf should be "no one will ever be better than the Nicklaus era!"

 

What is the realistic argument that players aren't better today when number of golfers in America has stayed constant or gone up, number of golfers globally has increased (the rankings also show this with their diversity), barriers to entry to the game of golf at a global level have gone down, pay has gone drastically up, ease of travel has gotten better.....

 

I mean what's the realistic argument? If you take 125 people who are great at math in 1975, than decide we're going to 10x the pay of people who do math while lowering tuition fees at universities. I'm going to guess the top 125 people will be better at math 30-40 years later.

[sekrah]

It's just like the argument of this Warrior's team beating Jordan's Bulls. Of course Lanny is partial, but we'll never know............

 

Let's not get crazy now. Haha

 

2017 Warriors beat the 1996 Bulls in 6.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/vegas-oddsmakers-say-2017-warriors-would-be-favored-over-jordans-72-win-bulls/

[nochct1]

Fairways and greens. Their skill set was much better than the current players.

 

My point being that you never really controlled the balata ball, you simply managed the spin, which meant you had a great set of hands.

 

It has nothing to do with the athlete. The question is about equipment. Give a professional better equipment he'll play better.

 

Today's ball makes golf frankly uninteresting- ball goes straight. BORING. No matter how bad you swing- it goes straight.

 

That is the reason the old timers would eat these guys for lunch- fairways and greens.

 

And....agronomy.....and mowers....and water.........back in the day they didn't care about angle in to greens- if there was a green patch of fairway they'd hit it there in order to get a better lie than off a thin crusty lie.

 

The current golfers may be stronger, etc, but the skill set of the older guys is simply better. They had to be better because of the equipment they had to play with.

 

And they're a lot more interesting than the poosies we have today. No I'll take a crusty smoking, whiskey drinkin, skirt chasin, red eyed old bastxxx from the past over any of these delicate girly-men on tour today.

 

Easy money.....

 

Quite possibly the worst post I've ever read on this website.

[Pent08]

The athletes of today compete for the same reasons as the athletes of yesterday. If Rory, Tiger, DJ, Phil etc were still using the same equipment, their athleticism would just manifest itself in different ways. They'd be forced to hold back and focus on accuracy, simply because that's how tournaments would be won. The mindset of an athlete and how he/she attacks a course undergoes a change that follows the evolution of equipment. But that's not to say that players are fundamentally less talented.

[new2g0lf]

The athletes of today compete for the same reasons as the athletes of yesterday. If Rory, Tiger, DJ, Phil etc were still using the same equipment, their athleticism would just manifest itself in different ways. They'd be forced to hold back and focus on accuracy, simply because that's how tournaments would be won. The mindset of an athlete and how he/she attacks a course undergoes a change the follows the evolution of equipment. But that's not to say that players are fundamentally less talented.

 

Great post, athletes adapt but I think it would be easier for a guy today to swing at 70% to make better contact with a persimmon wood and balata ball than it would for Lanny to train his body to be able swing at 90%+ (week after week) in order to compete with the distance the guys hit it today.

[youdamantiger]

These debates are pointless and never convince anyone but...once more into the breach dear friends. Let's start by establishing some evolutionary parameters. There are NO, ZILCH, NADA, DE RIEN, NEIN, NON, NYET physiological differences between a male born in 1940 and a male born in 1990 except for a slight difference in height. And by slight I mean less than a quarter of an inch. Massive gains in inherent athleticism that some of you are talking about would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to show up.

 

So, there are no inherent physical benefits to being born in 1990 vs 1940. With that possibility eliminated there are only 3 other ways in which today's generation could possibly be "better" than the generation of the mid-60s through the mid-80s. The first, better training and nutrition. I would admit that today's players spend more time in the gym and are, generally, speaking more "fit." But so what? Being fit does not benefit you that much in golf. If it did, 145 pound Justin Thomas wouldn't be a distance leader on Tour and neither would beer keg shaped JB Holmes. The Tour stat leaders are a motley, hodgepodge collection of different body types. And we don't even have to just look at the modern Tour to see this effect. Greg Norman looks like he was cut from granite but he was always shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Fat Jack was longer than Arnie and his boxer's physique. And Arnie was longer than Frank Stranahan who looked like he had stepped off the pages of Muscle Magazine. I would never argue that more athleticism doesn't produce an advantage in a sport like football or basketball but this is golf we're talking about. The second best player of the modern era is Phil Mickelson and the only time he lifts a weight is to look behind it for the remote.

 

The second way in which the modern generation could possibly be better is technique. But this argument only works if you think that there is an aesthetic ideal for the golf swing. I think we all know that there's not. Look at the success Jim Furyk and Daniel Berger have had with their ugly azz swings. Most of the greatest players of all time have technical deficiencies in their swing. Tiger with his head dip on the downswing. Jack with his flying elbow. They still got the job done. There are a lot of different ways to deliver that clubhead to the ball.

 

The third way modern players could be better is external advantages. And, here, is the one that I don't think anyone could deny. The list of advantages the modern player has is really stunning. 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, how could the modern player not be better? But here's the thing, those are external ​advantages, easily transferable to any other generation of golfers. And I still maintain that if we could bring the generation from the mid-60s to the mid-80s forward in time and give them all of these advantages they would outperform the modern generation.

[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.

We would have to do someone like Patrick (rangersgoalie) but I'm pretty sure the days of the players 50-200 getting decent dough just for having a card are over. Look at the Forbes list of athletes pay.

 

Yeah, I have no idea if it's still that way or not.

[sekrah]

And I still maintain that if we could bring the generation from the mid-60s to the mid-80s forward in time and give them all of these advantages they would outperform the modern generation.

 

So you agree that the players today are better, but if the players of 1960s-80s had today's nutrition, training, and technology, they'd be better.........And this is based on what exactly besides your feelings? You just got done saying that people almost exactly the same as they were 40 years ago!

 

If all things are equal and the generations are exactly the same, the defining characteristic to determine the quality of player would be the size of the playing pool. More people playing = more likely to be better players and much deeper competition. So how many people were participating in golf in 1960 vs today? Don't have all the participation numbers, but there were 1100 USGA clubs in 1930, 5900 in 1980 and there's around 11,000 now. European courses have gone from 1200 to more than 6000 in just 30 years. It doesn't take much common sense to figure out that it's harder to win a professional golf tournament today than 50 years ago.

[MtlJeff]

These debates are pointless and never convince anyone but...once more into the breech dear friends. Let's start by establishing some evolutionary parameters. There are NO, ZILCH, NADA, DE RIEN, NEIN, NON, NYET physiological differences between a male born in 1940 and a male born in 1990 except for a slight difference in height. And by slight I mean less than a quarter of an inch. Massive gains in inherent athleticism that some of you are talking about would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to show up.

 

So, there are no inherent physical benefits to being born in 1990 vs 1940. With that possibility eliminated there are only 3 other ways in which today's generation could possibly be "better" than the generation of the mid-60s through the mid-80s. The first, better training and nutrition. I would admit that today's players spend more time in the gym and are, generally, speaking more "fit." But so what? Being fit does not benefit you that much in golf. If it did, 145 pound Justin Thomas wouldn't be a distance leader on Tour and neither would beer keg shaped JB Holmes. The Tour stat leaders are a motley, hodgepodge collection of different body types. And we don't even have to just look at the modern Tour to see this effect. Greg Norman looks like he was cut from granite but he was always shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Fat Jack was longer than Arnie and his boxer's physique. And Arnie was longer than Frank Stranahan who looked like he had stepped off the pages of Muscle Magazine. I would never argue that more athleticism doesn't produce an advantage in a sport like football or basketball but this is golf we're talking about. The second best player of the modern era is Phil Mickelson and the only time he lifts a weight is to look behind it for the remote.

 

The second way in which the modern generation could possibly be better is technique. But this argument only works if you think that there is an aesthetic ideal for the golf swing. I think we all know that there's not. Look at the success Jim Furyk and Daniel Berger have had with their ugly azz swings. Most of the greatest players of all time have technical deficiencies in their swing. Tiger with his head dip on the downswing. Jack with his flying elbow. They still got the job done. There are a lot of different ways to deliver that clubhead to the ball.

 

The third way modern players could be better is external advantages. And, here, is the one that I don't think anyone could deny. The list of advantages the modern player has is really stunning. 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, how could the modern player not be better? But here's the thing, those are external ​advantages, easily transferable to any other generation of golfers. And I still maintain that if we could bring the generation from the mid-60s to the mid-80s forward in time and give them all of these advantages they would outperform the modern generation.

 

^^^^ your last paragraph is really the point though right? I mean i guess?

 

Physiological differences take thousands of years to manifest, so yes there's basically no difference between a dude in 1940 and 1990 (though in the past couple of hundred years evidence seems to be we are getting taller by a couple of inches, that's negligeable for this discussion)

 

So yes external factors (outside of the human body's capabilities) are why we get better at things a lot of the time. Another reason is that a bar gets set and people strive to break it by pushing themselves harder, or individuals get born who are perfect for a particular sport in terms of physique and maximize it (usain bolt a good example of this) and these guys don't just come along every day

 

But yes overall, external factors. But that doesn't mean the old guys should just crap on the new guys. The new guys ARE better. And any hypothesizing about what might have happened had guys had access to this or that is just speculation.

 

I still think the point about depth of field due to pay increases for the job are hard to refute too, and that should lead to overall better talent in the proffesion

[nochct1]

These debates are pointless and never convince anyone but...once more into the breech dear friends. Let's start by establishing some evolutionary parameters. There are NO, ZILCH, NADA, DE RIEN, NEIN, NON, NYET physiological differences between a male born in 1940 and a male born in 1990 except for a slight difference in height. And by slight I mean less than a quarter of an inch. Massive gains in inherent athleticism that some of you are talking about would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to show up.

 

So, there are no inherent physical benefits to being born in 1990 vs 1940. With that possibility eliminated there are only 3 other ways in which today's generation could possibly be "better" than the generation of the mid-60s through the mid-80s. The first, better training and nutrition. I would admit that today's players spend more time in the gym and are, generally, speaking more "fit." But so what? Being fit does not benefit you that much in golf. If it did, 145 pound Justin Thomas wouldn't be a distance leader on Tour and neither would beer keg shaped JB Holmes. The Tour stat leaders are a motley, hodgepodge collection of different body types. And we don't even have to just look at the modern Tour to see this effect. Greg Norman looks like he was cut from granite but he was always shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Fat Jack was longer than Arnie and his boxer's physique. And Arnie was longer than Frank Stranahan who looked like he had stepped off the pages of Muscle Magazine. I would never argue that more athleticism doesn't produce an advantage in a sport like football or basketball but this is golf we're talking about. The second best player of the modern era is Phil Mickelson and the only time he lifts a weight is to look behind it for the remote.

 

The second way in which the modern generation could possibly be better is technique. But this argument only works if you think that there is an aesthetic ideal for the golf swing. I think we all know that there's not. Look at the success Jim Furyk and Daniel Berger have had with their ugly azz swings. Most of the greatest players of all time have technical deficiencies in their swing. Tiger with his head dip on the downswing. Jack with his flying elbow. They still got the job done. There are a lot of different ways to deliver that clubhead to the ball.

 

The third way modern players could be better is external advantages. And, here, is the one that I don't think anyone could deny. The list of advantages the modern player has is really stunning. 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, how could the modern player not be better? But here's the thing, those are external ​advantages, easily transferable to any other generation of golfers. And I still maintain that if we could bring the generation from the mid-60s to the mid-80s forward in time and give them all of these advantages they would outperform the modern generation.

 

Would someone from the 60s or 80s be as good today? Sure. And it's because of the reasons listed above.

 

But, the top players then might only be the 50th or 100th best player now. And that's because there are more people who are playing professional golf.

 

Fill out a field of 150 from a pool of 400 and then fill out a field of 150 from a pool of 2500. You'll end up finding the best and deepest field from the 2500, not the 400.

[new2g0lf]

These debates are pointless and never convince anyone but...once more into the breech dear friends. Let's start by establishing some evolutionary parameters. There are NO, ZILCH, NADA, DE RIEN, NEIN, NON, NYET physiological differences between a male born in 1940 and a male born in 1990 except for a slight difference in height. And by slight I mean less than a quarter of an inch. Massive gains in inherent athleticism that some of you are talking about would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to show up.

 

So, there are no inherent physical benefits to being born in 1990 vs 1940. With that possibility eliminated there are only 3 other ways in which today's generation could possibly be "better" than the generation of the mid-60s through the mid-80s. The first, better training and nutrition. I would admit that today's players spend more time in the gym and are, generally, speaking more "fit." But so what? Being fit does not benefit you that much in golf. If it did, 145 pound Justin Thomas wouldn't be a distance leader on Tour and neither would beer keg shaped JB Holmes. The Tour stat leaders are a motley, hodgepodge collection of different body types. And we don't even have to just look at the modern Tour to see this effect. Greg Norman looks like he was cut from granite but he was always shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Fat Jack was longer than Arnie and his boxer's physique. And Arnie was longer than Frank Stranahan who looked like he had stepped off the pages of Muscle Magazine. I would never argue that more athleticism doesn't produce an advantage in a sport like football or basketball but this is golf we're talking about. The second best player of the modern era is Phil Mickelson and the only time he lifts a weight is to look behind it for the remote.

 

The second way in which the modern generation could possibly be better is technique. But this argument only works if you think that there is an aesthetic ideal for the golf swing. I think we all know that there's not. Look at the success Jim Furyk and Daniel Berger have had with their ugly azz swings. Most of the greatest players of all time have technical deficiencies in their swing. Tiger with his head dip on the downswing. Jack with his flying elbow. They still got the job done. There are a lot of different ways to deliver that clubhead to the ball.

 

The third way modern players could be better is external advantages. And, here, is the one that I don't think anyone could deny. The list of advantages the modern player has is really stunning. 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, how could the modern player not be better? But here's the thing, those are external ​advantages, easily transferable to any other generation of golfers. And I still maintain that if we could bring the generation from the mid-60s to the mid-80s forward in time and give them all of these advantages they would outperform the modern generation.

 

Physiological differences due to evolution are not the core factors here, but technology and training can't be discounted. People live significantly longer today than they did in the 50's, it's not because we've evolved but because technology and medicine have progressed. Golfers are more fit and more aware of their swing because of the technology we have.

 

Another factor is our youth are much more dedicated to the sports they play (by their own doing or their parents) than they were during Lanny's time.

[North Texas]

Times change. Athletes get bigger, stronger and faster in every sport. The athlete of today is FAR superior to the athlete of 30-50 years ago. It isn't even close.

 

I was flipping channels recently and came across the NHL all star game from 1981. The quality of play was horrific. It seriously looked like a mediocre Junior college game, and these were the all stars.Gretzky would be a second line utility player.

 

Gretzky would still be the best player in the game, just by not as much.

 

Zero chance of this. He would be a 2nd liner. If you think I am crazy, go search youtube and watch games from the early 80's when he was in his prime.

 

Don't watch it as a fan, watch it as somebody assessing talent. Like a coach would do at a tryout. Notice:

• The lack of speed in the game across players
  
• The inferior skating ability across players
  
• The lack of puck-handling skills across players
  
• The fact that goalies wore equipment that was much smaller YET much heavier
  
• Notice how most goalies just kind of stand there, apprehensive to get into a butterfly. They literally just stand there and try and make kick saves by firing their leg out. Goalies were horrific back then compared to goalies of today.
  

Watch the game as someone assessing talent. Then go pick a game from this year and watch that. As a coach assessing talent, you can look at games from that timeframe and watch games from today and compare players across all the core skills you would evaluate them on in a tryout.

 

Any objective analysis of skills will result in a determination that players from the 70's and 80's are incredibly inferior to players of today.

 

A random game I grabbed form 1980:

 

These guys suck.

 

Compare that to the 2017 NCAA championship game:

https://www.youtube....h?v=hqs1yxbmuCo

 

Notice the difference across all fundamental skills. And these are college kids of which the vast majority will not make it to the show. We are comparing the college kids of today to NHL players from 1980. The college kids win.

 

 

To try to make a point you made about Gretzky, you include a video... that does not include Gretzky? Well done.

 

At Waynes' peak, he was miles ahead of everyone else. The gap between him and everyone else was vast - way bigger than the gap between Conor/Sidney and whoever you consider to be #3 today. Eventually Mario showed up, and it was the two of them. Mario is the only player in the last 40 years who was close to as good as Wayne.

 

Wayne only retired 18 years ago - there are still a few guys in the league that played against him. Mario only retired 11 years ago, and was still a very effective player in his late 30s (when he could play). We're not talking about Aurele Joliat here.

 

To say that Gretzky wouldn't be really good in today's game is just totally and completely idiotic.

[rangersgoalie]

Yea, Gretzky wouldn't be scoring 90 goals a season, but he would absolutely easily still be an all-star mentioned in the same breath with Crosby and Ovechkin if he played today. The game may be much tougher now but he'd still be bagging 40+ goals, 60+ assists every year, maybe more. Gretzky was scoring 25 goals, assisting 70 in the late 90s when he was in his late 30s.

 

Second liner? That's easily the craziest thing said on this thread so far. Jaromir Jagr was 44 two years ago and he notched 66 pts. Gretzky's skills were bonkers. Just because he dominated a soft era in the game, doesn't mean he wouldn't succeed today.

 

The game changed, defense has changed, goalies are better and players are better skaters. That said Gretzky would still be a top player if he played on teams with comparable talent to what he did in the years he played.

 

One BIG difference Gretzky today would face, is he would get hit, a lot more. More guys could catch him, and there is much less hands off of stars these days IMO

[EKELLY]

Yea, Gretzky wouldn't be scoring 90 goals a season, but he would absolutely easily still be an all-star mentioned in the same breath with Crosby and Ovechkin if he played today. The game may be much tougher now but he'd still be bagging 40+ goals, 60+ assists every year, maybe more. Gretzky was scoring 25 goals, assisting 70 in the late 90s when he was in his late 30s.

 

Second liner? That's easily the craziest thing said on this thread so far. Jaromir Jagr was 44 two years ago and he notched 66 pts. Gretzky's skills were bonkers. Just because he dominated a soft era in the game, doesn't mean he wouldn't succeed today.

 

The game changed, defense has changed, goalies are better and players are better skaters. That said Gretzky would still be a top player if he played on teams with comparable talent to what he did in the years he played.

 

One BIG difference Gretzky today would face, is he would get hit, a lot more. More guys could catch him, and there is much less hands off of stars these days IMO

Gretzky has stated several times on record that he'd get KILLED in the league today. Still score frequently, but get beat up, career much shorter

[Darth Putter]

turning back to a sport I've watched more than ten minutes of in the last 37 years...

 

 

 

I wonder who Lanny would consider his era. He was born in 1949, so 1944-1954 would include...

 

Tom Watson

Johnny Miller (the only 2 with more PGA Tour wins than Lanny in this group)

Hale Irwin

Ben Crenshaw

Hubert Green

Tom Kite

 

then it's quite a dropoff down to the likes of Larry Nelson, Craig Stadler and Bruce Lietzke (get well soon)

 

If you take it out to 1939-1959 then you get all sorts of good ones

 

Jack Nicklaus

Lee Trevino

Ray Floyd

Greg Norman

Nick Price

Curtis Strange

Mark O'Meara

Tom Weiskopf

Fred Couples

Corey Pavin

Seve Ballesteros

Nick Faldo

Bernhard Langer

Ian Woosnam

Sandy Lyle

 

 

I also wonder what he means by now. Dustin Johnson (age 33) on down like the current US President's Cup team? Or do they get to pick up the rest of the 30 somethings and maybe even Phil?

[EKELLY]

Just to put things in view, in the 90s tour players were asked to rank other tour players. Lanny was ranked in the top 10, along with Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, Casper. Lanny was a great player in the early 80s. He had a great 4 - 5 years, of course he would not be ranked that high now, he doesn't have the record to support a high ranking, but I think he was as good as Miller and some others that were well thought of.

When you talk of Miller and his peers, like Wadkins, Johnny's only saving grace is he played ALOT less tournaments than guys like Wadkins. Probably over 200 less, which back then was the equivalent of 8 years on Tour......LOL

[Shilgy]

Just to put things in view, in the 90s tour players were asked to rank other tour players. Lanny was ranked in the top 10, along with Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, Casper. Lanny was a great player in the early 80s. He had a great 4 - 5 years, of course he would not be ranked that high now, he doesn't have the record to support a high ranking, but I think he was as good as Miller and some others that were well thought of.

When you talk of Miller and his peers, like Wadkins, Johnny's only saving grace is he played ALOT less tournaments than guys like Wadkins. Probably over 200 less, which back then was the equivalent of 8 years on Tour......LOL

Yep, Miller played 280 fewer tour events.

Lanny is one of the guys Floyd doesn't think should be in the hall of fame. One major??

[Guia]

No argument from me, Miller was a great player. Floyd doesn't think that Couples also should not be in the Hall of Fame. But, Majors are not the only criteria.

[TollBros]

It's just like the argument of this Warrior's team beating Jordan's Bulls. Of course Lanny is partial, but we'll never know............

 

Let's not get crazy now. Haha

 

2017 Warriors beat the 1996 Bulls in 6.

 

http://www.cbssports...s-72-win-bulls/

 

Never. Ever.

[sekrah]

It's just like the argument of this Warrior's team beating Jordan's Bulls. Of course Lanny is partial, but we'll never know............

 

Let's not get crazy now. Haha

 

2017 Warriors beat the 1996 Bulls in 6.

 

http://www.cbssports...s-72-win-bulls/

 

Never. Ever.

 

Yea, you're probably right. Bulls would be lucky to get past a 5th game.