Lanny Is Putting Everyone On Blast Today!

[williamsnrb]

Wow... this thread took off in an entirely different direction than I thought! Some great posts have been made - great discussion regarding the history of the game.

[Shilgy]

Interesting is right. Look at the list of all time winners. The only guys that were truly in Lanny's era were Jack, Watson, Floyd, Miller and Trevino. Compared to Tiger Phil and VJ of the latest era shows you can win a lot of events still. It's harder yes but can be done. It's perhaps the intermediate level stars. The 15-20 win level guys of the past that will win 8-15 times today.

[Soloman1]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

[golfnut1964]

I thought Lanny did have an interesting take when asked about the "toughness" of his era v. today's era.

Having to win to make any kind of money then compared to the earnings a player makes today for a top 25

never mind a win. You could see how that might make a player less hungrier, grittier...call it what you want.

You had to really perform in his era to make serious coin relative to the era-almost tot the point of winning.

 

Not taking anything away from CHIII. To keep your card this long, keep the drive to compete this long my hats off.

But I thought if nothing else it was an interesting angle from Lanny. That in and of itself would force you to want to

win not just place in the top 25 or whatever to collect a decent paycheck.

 

And yes I do see that side of Lanny haha.

[dlygrisse]

It's easier to win now since Tiger is out and not dominating like Jack did.

 

For heaven's sake people, billiard table courses with cryogenically built, gyroscopically balanced, low spin super balls with Titanium forged, trampoline faced, NASA designed heads on filament wound shafts built with technology learned from crashed alien spacecraft at Roswell are waaaay different than tiny, manly wood on steel and balata balls on courses that modern pros would turn their noses up and have their tasseled loafer media manager craft a social media post to whine about.

 

Haha. That should rile a few more Millenials up.

 

So true! You are so right. You've just tapped into the Legends' mindset. That was a perfect post to demonstrate the folly of the bluehair way of thinking. Kudos, bru!

 

Except even after all the advancement scoring isn't all that much lower. Byron Nelsons all time scoring record stood till Tiger broke it over 50 years later and it still hasn't been re-broken.

[mjen43]

I thought Lanny did have an interesting take when asked about the "toughness" of his era v. today's era.

Having to win to make any kind of money then compared to the earnings a player makes today for a top 25

never mind a win. You could see how that might make a player less hungrier, grittier...call it what you want.

You had to really perform in his era to make serious coin relative to the era-almost tot the point of winning.

 

Not taking anything away from CHIII. To keep your card this long, keep the drive to compete this long my hats off.

But I thought if nothing else it was an interesting angle from Lanny. That in and of itself would force you to want to

win not just place in the top 25 or whatever to collect a decent paycheck.

 

And yes I do see that side of Lanny haha.

 

It was already proven in this thread that players did not have to win to make good money, though.

 

*sorry. Proven in the Lanny fires a shot thread

[PowderedToastMan]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

Logic. To me the logic is sound, but it's definitely open for debate. If you believe fields are stronger, it's logical that middle tier players will win less. In effect, it's the middle tier players competing against each other, so that's why they win less when the fields are deeper. As the argument goes, the top dogs will win no matter what, because they are better than everyone in the field, whether it's 10 or 10,000 players.

[Darth Putter]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

 

If there's been win inflation (or deflation in this case), let's adjust for it.

 

Let's compare two golfers.

 

One is Lanny Wadkins with 21 PGA Tour wins from 1972-1992 and 1 major championship.

 

The other is Rickie Fowler who has 4 PGA Tour wins since 2012. He already has a TPC win like Lanny. Now let's suppose that he does win one major in his career. How many wins does Rickie need from there to have a career as good as Lanny's?

[drn92]

It's easier to win now since Tiger is out and not dominating like Jack did.

 

For heaven's sake people, billiard table courses with cryogenically built, gyroscopically balanced, low spin super balls with Titanium forged, trampoline faced, NASA designed heads on filament wound shafts built with technology learned from crashed alien spacecraft at Roswell are waaaay different than tiny, manly wood on steel and balata balls on courses that modern pros would turn their noses up and have their tasseled loafer media manager craft a social media post to whine about.

 

Haha. That should rile a few more Millenials up.

 

So true! You are so right. You've just tapped into the Legends' mindset. That was a perfect post to demonstrate the folly of the bluehair way of thinking. Kudos, bru!

 

Except even after all the advancement scoring isn't all that much lower. Byron Nelsons all time scoring record stood till Tiger broke it over 50 years later and it still hasn't been re-broken.

 

Courses are tougher today.

 

drn92

[Darth Putter]

I thought Lanny did have an interesting take when asked about the "toughness" of his era v. today's era.

Having to win to make any kind of money then compared to the earnings a player makes today for a top 25

never mind a win. You could see how that might make a player less hungrier, grittier...call it what you want.

You had to really perform in his era to make serious coin relative to the era-almost tot the point of winning.

 

Not taking anything away from CHIII. To keep your card this long, keep the drive to compete this long my hats off.

But I thought if nothing else it was an interesting angle from Lanny. That in and of itself would force you to want to

win not just place in the top 25 or whatever to collect a decent paycheck.

 

And yes I do see that side of Lanny haha.

 

I wonder if Lanny was referring to the old qualifying system before the all exempt tour in 1983.

 

Here's an old ESPN article from 2004 on the subject.

 

http://www.espn.com/golf/news/story?id=1908721

 

 

I think trying to survive in that system is what makes Lanny says it was "tougher" back then.

 

Of course, he spent more time at the top of the food chain. So that system may have made his road a little easier.

[Shilgy]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

Off top of my head thinking of the number of guys that got there in the past and won't in the future. Just a gut feel, nothing more.

[Night train]

Lanny certainly speaks what's on his mind, but in his day.........you wanted him on your team. The man was fearless and would fire a long iron at a flag tucked next to a water hazard without any hesitation. He played to win and you weren't going to intimidate him!

[Shilgy]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

 

If there's been win inflation (or deflation in this case), let's adjust for it.

 

Let's compare two golfers.

 

One is Lanny Wadkins with 21 PGA Tour wins from 1972-1992 and 1 major championship.

 

The other is Rickie Fowler who has 4 PGA Tour wins since 2012. He already has a TPC win like Lanny. Now let's suppose that he does win one major in his career. How many wins does Rickie need from there to have a career as good as Lanny's?

15 tops imo. Also depends on other finishes though a bit. Would most say that Jonathan Byrd or CH3 have had better careers? Byrd has 5 wins versus 2 for Howell but Howell has won nearly twice as much cash and been consistently higher ranked.

[Darth Putter]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

 

If there's been win inflation (or deflation in this case), let's adjust for it.

 

Let's compare two golfers.

 

One is Lanny Wadkins with 21 PGA Tour wins from 1972-1992 and 1 major championship.

 

The other is Rickie Fowler who has 4 PGA Tour wins since 2012. He already has a TPC win like Lanny. Now let's suppose that he does win one major in his career. How many wins does Rickie need from there to have a career as good as Lanny's?

15 tops imo. Also depends on other finishes though a bit. Would most say that Jonathan Byrd or CH3 have had better careers? Byrd has 5 wins versus 2 for Howell but Howell has won nearly twice as much cash and been consistently higher ranked.

 

That sounds about right. Jim Furyk sits at a 17/ 1 split and I'd say he's right at Lanny's level.

 

Here's Kyle Porter at CBS with the pro Charles Howell III view

 

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/earning-33m-with-just-two-wins-proves-theres-many-paths-to-pga-tour-success/

[EKELLY]

Interesting is right. Look at the list of all time winners. The only guys that were truly in Lanny's era were Jack, Watson, Floyd, Miller and Trevino. Compared to Tiger Phil and VJ of the latest era shows you can win a lot of events still. It's harder yes but can be done. It's perhaps the intermediate level stars. The 15-20 win level guys of the past that will win 8-15 times today.

I don't see many getting to 20 again......

[Shilgy]

Interesting is right. Look at the list of all time winners. The only guys that were truly in Lanny's era were Jack, Watson, Floyd, Miller and Trevino. Compared to Tiger Phil and VJ of the latest era shows you can win a lot of events still. It's harder yes but can be done. It's perhaps the intermediate level stars. The 15-20 win level guys of the past that will win 8-15 times today.

I don't see many getting to 20 again......

Agree, just the truly elite will. And that's the discussion really. Is Lanny elite because he has 21? If you're correct just about about all the elite players are done playing. Does that make sense to anyone? Looks like most of the best started their careers almost a century ago. Okey dokey then.

[PGArox]

I thought Lanny did have an interesting take when asked about the "toughness" of his era v. today's era.

 

Having to win to make any kind of money then compared to the earnings a player makes today for a top 25

never mind a win. You could see how that might make a player less hungrier, grittier...call it what you want.

 

I think it has already been established that 1) The money those guys were making in the 70's and 80's was pretty good, and 2) You could make very good coin in that era without winning.

 

Here is an interesting little aside: the last golfer to rack up 20 or more top 10 finishes in a PGA TOUR season was Tom Kite, with 21 in 1981. He won only once that season, but he won the money title.

 

If you convert that lone Tom Kite victory in 1981 into a runner-up finish, he likely still wins the money title, but if he doesn't, he certainly finishes no worse than 2nd or 3rd on that season's money list, and I'm sure he had no problems paying his bills.

 

By the way, that's a reference to a ridiculous assertion Lanny Wadkins made on national TV.

[Roadking2003]

 

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

"the exponential increase in golfers"... when did that happen? I must have missed it.

[Roadking2003]

How is that 15-20 = 8-15 formula derived?

 

If there's been win inflation (or deflation in this case), let's adjust for it.

 

Let's compare two golfers.

 

One is Lanny Wadkins with 21 PGA Tour wins from 1972-1992 and 1 major championship.

 

The other is Rickie Fowler who has 4 PGA Tour wins since 2012. He already has a TPC win like Lanny. Now let's suppose that he does win one major in his career. How many wins does Rickie need from there to have a career as good as Lanny's?

 

17

[Ashley Schaeffer]

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

"the exponential increase in golfers"... when did that happen? I must have missed it.

 

I guess you have.

[toc]

I'm on my mobile, can someone post that Simpsons "Old man yells at cloud" captioned pic?

 

Always a classic for situations like this

 

This thread is worthless witho- s*** wrong one.

[Soloman1]

 

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

You obviously know nothing about the golf industry. The number of golfers is about the same as it was in the 1980's and the population has increased by 100 million people. The number of golfers has actually gone down in the last 10 years.

[Night train]

It's interesting looking at the old money lists compared to today......

 

5th place season earnings 1980.......Ben Crenshaw-$237,727

5th place season earnings 2016.......Patrick Reed-$5,679,575

[nochct1]

It's interesting looking at the old money lists compared to today......

 

5th place season earnings 1980.......Ben Crenshaw-$237,727

5th place season earnings 2016.......Patrick Reed-$5,679,575

 

In 2017 dollars Crenshaw won around $800k. Nowhere near what the money is now, but it's still pretty good money he was making.

[Soloman1]

But endorsement money was minuscule then compared to today. Heck, guys just getting through Q-school make more money in endorsements before they ever tee it up in their first tournament than guys on tour did in 5 years.

 

Amana paid a whopping $50 to some select players to wear their hat.

 

There were only 60 spots exempt into tournaments in Lanny's day. I remember the rabbit days of driving from Monday qualifying to Monday qualifying every week. If you made it through the qualifying but missed the cut, you may not eat that week.

 

There was no Web.com / Hogan tour then. You played mini tours (like Goosey's space coast), hustled, or drove to Monday qualifiers.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

You obviously know nothing about the golf industry. The number of golfers is about the same as it was in the 1980's and the population has increased by 100 million people. The number of golfers has actually gone down in the last 10 years.

 

Numbers v. percentages.

[JD3]

Imo he's the best announcer ever. Shame he got pushed off the network by faldo, who's dull as dishwater in the booth

[Soloman1]

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

You obviously know nothing about the golf industry. The number of golfers is about the same as it was in the 1980's and the population has increased by 100 million people. The number of golfers has actually gone down in the last 10 years.

 

Numbers v. percentages.

 

Yeah, right.

[North Texas]

I thought Lanny did have an interesting take when asked about the "toughness" of his era v. today's era.

Having to win to make any kind of money then compared to the earnings a player makes today for a top 25

never mind a win. You could see how that might make a player less hungrier, grittier...call it what you want.

You had to really perform in his era to make serious coin relative to the era-almost tot the point of winning.

 

Not taking anything away from CHIII. To keep your card this long, keep the drive to compete this long my hats off.

But I thought if nothing else it was an interesting angle from Lanny. That in and of itself would force you to want to

win not just place in the top 25 or whatever to collect a decent paycheck.

 

And yes I do see that side of Lanny haha.

 

It was already proven in this thread that players did not have to win to make good money, though.

 

*sorry. Proven in the Lanny fires a shot thread

 

Have not read one thing in either thread that has convinced that is true.

 

Especially after reading post #113 above.

[mjen43]

I thought Lanny did have an interesting take when asked about the "toughness" of his era v. today's era.

Having to win to make any kind of money then compared to the earnings a player makes today for a top 25

never mind a win. You could see how that might make a player less hungrier, grittier...call it what you want.

You had to really perform in his era to make serious coin relative to the era-almost tot the point of winning.

 

Not taking anything away from CHIII. To keep your card this long, keep the drive to compete this long my hats off.

But I thought if nothing else it was an interesting angle from Lanny. That in and of itself would force you to want to

win not just place in the top 25 or whatever to collect a decent paycheck.

 

And yes I do see that side of Lanny haha.

 

It was already proven in this thread that players did not have to win to make good money, though.

 

*sorry. Proven in the Lanny fires a shot thread

 

Have not read one thing in either thread that has convinced that is true.

 

Especially after reading post #113 above.

 

That is nearly 750k in today's earnings though. It's obviously not what they make today but that is a large amount of money to make in one year, certainly enough to live rather comfortably.