Faldo vs. Mickelson, who was better?

[VNutz]

And after the time mentioned he was consistently top 10, if not top 5 for the better part of a decade. Top 10 for 2 years is very good, top 5 to top 10 for a decade with 4 majors during that time is top tier. As stated, he was good prior, but his career took off after.

Yet in 2003 he was 5th, the rank compared to others can change pretty quickly. Average changed from 270ish on the lower end to around 300ish, despite going from his mid 20s to 40. That's pretty significant IMO as the entire game changed during that time. It's not uncommon for younger guys to be prominent on driving distance boards, heck Steve Stricker appears as top 10 for a few years there in the 90s. To be there still as a then 40 year old is not as common.

[Shilgy]

You slightly misunderstood what I wrote and then wrote what I said. I was saying that the better shaft tech allowed the taller athletes to play well. Yes there were a few..Tom and Nick as you mentioned...Norman was 6 even, shorter than Tiger. But in the 60’-80’s,as I mentioned, 5’9”-10” was considered ideal for the equipment of the day. Now a majority are pretty big guys. No, not all. But many more than there were previously and the better tech allows them to flourish.

[bscinstnct]

 

I disagree Phil would have accomplished any less if equipment had never changed. He racked up 17 wins by 2001. Adjusting to new equipment in your 30s is very difficult. Look at Tiger, he was younger and his driving was wild with the new drivers and he’s younger than Phil.

 

Some guys develop their game and maturity over the years. Hogan won 8 of 9 majors in his late 30s/early 40s.

In fact, you could argue that Phil's "I'm such an idiot" lack of discipline was the main reason he didn't win majors earlier and this lack of discipline was encouraged by the new driver and ball and if the equipment hadn't changed, he may have been more risk averse.

[Shilgy]

Well said...Hogan won late because of perseverance and gritty digging it out of the dirt. Phil evidently got lucky the equipment changed.

 

I have never really received much of an answer for a simple question. Why is it that athletes on other sports are widely considered to be bigger stronger fast and better than those of yesteryear but not professional golfers? Cy Young won 511 games and is really never mentioned as the best ever. Even watching the Bulls documentary you can see the NBA players today are, in general, more skilled. And yet we are to believe the best golfer played almost a century ago. Why does no one say Young Tom Morris while they’re at it?

For some reason golf protects its players and refuses to acknowledge better has come along.

[Hawkeye77]

We could have, but I don't want to have, quite an argument about the NBA. Short answer IMO is it's still definitional to a point. I think the current "prototype" basketball player may on average be bigger, stronger, faster BUT generally "more skilled"? Depends on how that's being defined. On the college level, been watching a lot of 80s vintage NCAA basketball - plenty of players I watch who were gifted then would be relevant and gifted players now. I see plenty of college teams on average that I don't think are necessarily more skilled now in some ways - a different game. NBA is a different game than it was in the 70s, 80s and even 90s. And with all-time great NBA players I think you need to differentiate by position. So hard to compare across different eras ---- maybe golf just seems more connected to the past when watching, seems like it really doesn't change even though it does? Maybe we all watch golf with the "I can do that" and a different perspective than watching Dr. J dunk vs. some current idol. I watch Jack hit shots in old footage, I watch current players hitting shots - they are all playing golf (current guys seem to have better waistlines, lol) maybe that's why on average the "better" doesn't come across for some - they are different, but they are the same.

Larry Bird, a ways ahead of John Havlicek and Pete Maravich, is my all time favorite player and a different kind of player/different position than Jordan and they are the two all-timers for me as a "pair" - gifted, hard workers, stone cold competitors. I'm sure all sorts of folks (leaving Magic, and Elgin Baylor, and Oscar Robertson, and Bill Russell, Wilt and Kareem out of it) have a few players (shouldn't be more than one in the argument, IMO and lol) the last 20 years they'd argue ahead of Bird and Jordan - different eras, all sorts of fodder for lively conversation.

 

 

 

[Lark]

It could just be that like many Tour golfers, they hit their prime playing performance in their late 20s and 30s. Phil was able to maintain a very high level into his mid-40s, but you can attribute that to his excellent short game more than better driving. He changed his swing to get longer as he got older but he also has gotten wilder. His driving is probably the worst part of his game.

[Hankshank]

Just about my thoughts. There are some equalities, big, slightly excentic fellows but wth totally different ideas on how to play. Faldo, a winner, very british. Phil is, well, Phil. Just one thing, his chumminess and fan favouriteness came pretty late. He was quite snobbish in the 90’s and said pretty stupid things. That turned around when he jumped.

[Shilgy]

Watching the old games I am struck by the fact that in general they were much poorer shooters, and even to an extent ball handlers(heresy i know) than today. There is a reason the top guys averaged over 20 boards a game a la Wilt and Russell and it’s not because players were draining shots.

Much of it boils down to...better instruction from a young age, better fitness training, even better food. An example...here at my club in Phoenix a golf academy shares a part of the range. And man I wish I would have had something similar as a child. These kids learn everything golf, from a proper handshake to a proper swing starting a a young age. And they make it fun! Many wind up getting college scholarships but even those that don’t will always have a proper swing to fall back on. Depending on where life takes them the could not play for a decade and come back later in life and have a good game.

[Lark]

Where is it widely considered that athletes in other sports are considered more skilled or athletic than prior generations? They aren't. Cy Young played a much different game than what baseball became. He played with different equipment, mainly the ball. It's like comparing Young Tom Morris to players 50 and 100+ years later. It was a different game with hickories and the balls they used then. It's too hard to compare what Cy Young did in the dead ball era to how the game changed during the 1920s with the livelier ball. I doubt you will find many people who think that prime Michael Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and the rest of those championship Bulls teams wouldn't be winning the same today.

[deadsolid...shank]

Hey Shilg, I’ll never dispute the players of today are bigger. And maybe more athletic, although remember David Thompson or Darrell Griffith. Nobody today is more athletic than those two

But I’ll never think they are more skilled now. Not poorer shooters, different shooters. Yes they make more three pointers now. That’s all kids do when they’re younger, shoot the three pointer. The older set didn’t play with it growing up, so they didn’t emphasize it when practicing. And a big reason for missed shots, a heck of a lot more shots were actually contested. Back when defense was played. I firmly believe the best shooters of the past are every bit as good as the best ones today. And if they had earned an extra point for shooting from 8’ farther out, they would have become just as proficient from there as well.

Ball handling? Who cares? So much of the ball handling today is pointless. I don’t know how many kids I coached over the years I told “no points for dribbling”. If players are using handling skills to effectively make a move to a better position or to the basket, that’s one thing. But I see a lot more of the showboat type dribbling than I do of ball handling skill that really accomplishes anything. Curry uses it effectively, but to me he’s more the exception than the rule. And Maravich did it just as well. Except it was a lot harder to do so while getting handchecked.

[Shilgy]

Like I said, just one mans opinion. At least the replies have been civil.

I stand by what I wrote in another post, the overall level of play is better than in the past(which is what I was saying when I said “in general the players are better”). I attribute that largely to better instruction at a young age. Back in my day for little league mostly they just rolled out the balls and we played. Today in every sport there is a better understanding of what to do properly.

 

I will add that one thing I figured would be mentioned is how they “played better defense back when”. That was more attributable to the general style of play. The game was played then much more within 12 feet of the basket. No, lol not exclusively, but in general. That certainly creates less space to defend than today’s spread game. Analytics have changed basketball, golf, baseball amongst many in how they are played. So yes, there are more 3’s in basketball today. 40%from 3 is the same as 60% from closer. Basic math but that has been a big change in strategy. Same as bomb and gouge golf and fly ball driven baseball.

 

[Hawkeye77]

Back in the day, I'd watch just about any ABA or NBA game and certain players were mesmerizing, but I was a Celtics fan through and through from a young age (but strangely had a fascination for the Knicks as well for several years - think "Clyde").

Even when I was watching just a little less, and post-merger - if the Nuggets were on TV I would watch just to watch David Thompson.

[bscinstnct]

I believe that the average height of the players in the mid 70s was 6’6. Now it’s...6’7.

 

The real change is speed and

 

now the players like

 

 

[deadsolid...shank]

That’s a fair point on the defense Shilgy, in that time the game was basically 18’ and in, you didn’t have to defend out to 24’. But you also had or have your head on a swivel with the constant moving and back picks. Today it’s hedge out on the pick and roll with two people while the other three stand and watch. And you’re 100% correct in how the 3 pointer has changed the game. Which in my opinion is why it needs to be moved back. Until there is a risk in relying on it. Like your stats show, right now it makes sense to focus your offense on the perimeter. Like you said, just one man’s opinion. And in my opinion, I simply like the old style better.

In regards to golf (and we’ve discussed this often in the past). While I agree with you that there is better overall play in today’s game, I also maintain that that allowed players to “learn” to close and win. I know, a very circular discussion that just keeps on keeping on!?

[Hawkeye77]

Stand and watch is when I realized I would never watch pro basketball again the few times I would check in and see the occasional game with a player I thought I'd check out. A lot going on in the good old days, so to speak, offensively and defensively.

Don't ask me why, but ever since I posted earlier today Bob McAdoo has been on my mind - stud. So have the late 70s Sonics (okay, that's an obvious connection - but McAdoo, no idea).

 

[Nels55]

I remember watching a lot of Warriors games and of course Celtic games every Sunday back in the 60's and there was almost always at least one comment about how nobody played defense anymore. LOL wait for the playoffs same as today.@Hawkeye77, well the Dubs had a terrible season this year but right when things got shutdown they were actually starting to play team ball with a lot of movement of players and the ball which is what their offense is based on. When they were in the chase for the last 7 years there were often mentions of the first pass by Igoudala or Draymond or really any of them that set up the assist because they saw what was going to happen before it happened. There are still teams playing smart basketball but there is also a ton of iso crap ball with 3 or 4 guys watching as has been mentioned. Sometimes when you have the best player on the floor and some spot up shooters that style wins games.
I guess this thread may be out of bounds about now?

[dalehead]

I think you’re misinterpreting the data. The reason most winning golfers in the last half of the twentieth century stood about 5’9” to 5’10” is because that was the average height of the male population.

[cdnglf]

 

Hmm, height became a serious advantage at some point...

 

Ernie, Phil, and DL3 are 6’3. Vijay 6’2. Tiger 6’1. That’s the 5 best players of that era.

Jordan, DJ, Day, Scott, Rose are all 6’+

Rory, JT, Sergio are smaller guys, of course.

But have a look at the all-time PGA Tour money list: all the above, plus Furyk, Bubba, El Cheapo... way more tall guys than you’d find in a random population selection.

 

 

 

 

[Lark]

One aspect when comparing with other sports is that in golf, you are not directly competing physically against the other person. You are not hitting a ball that someone else is throwing, or guarding against someone. You play the course. The substantial lengthening of courses didn't occur until the 1990s, after the technology explosion drastically and quickly resulted in substantial distance increases. Previously, equipment advances were gradual over many years.

The courses Ben Hogan played in the 1950s were substantially the same courses into the 1980s and early 1990s. His scores at Augusta, at the US Open at Riviera, and even at Carnoustie held up for decades. Even with creeping equipment advances, 10, 20, 30+ years later, those scores would still have been winning scores. All the so-called added better competition still didn't outdo him until equipment technology really took off.

[Shilgy]

Oh man, I tried my best to emulate that little McAdoo fade-away back in the day. Loved him with the Braves.

[dalehead]

If you use the all time money list as the measuring stick you have to rember that it is heavily weighted to players who have been in their primes during the Tiger era,and we have agreed that better athletes have been drawn to golf in that time. Also average height of males in the US has gone up. But even if we use this yardstick we find 20 of the top 50 all time money winners are under 6 feet. 6 more are an even 6 feet, so there is no real correlation with height. I may have missed someone but I believe the shortest player on the list is Rory at 5’9” and the tallest is DJ at 6’4”. That’s pretty representative of what you would see in the general population.

[Shilgy]

I am recalling an article from back when Tom Kite was #1. He was 5’9”. Probably Golf Digest

[Shilgy]

Just to be clear then.....it is your contention that Hogan Nelson Snead could still win 50% of the events in one season?

 

Put another way....what reason would you use for why, as the years go by, we have the wins spread out amongst more players? You can look at the all time wins list and see that the players with massive win totals are typically from many years ago. Makes Tiger, Phil and Vijay look even more impressive.

[Nels55]

@Shilgy, one thing to consider is that back in the early days there was not much prize money so if somebody wanted to make anything they played every tournament while working a club pro job in the winter. Playing every tournament meant a higher percentage of wins for the top players.

[bscinstnct]

I think that if there's a "perfect" size for an athlete that can combine speed, strength/power against opponents, and agility, it's probably 6'-6'1 and 200-225 pounds. This is strictly "all around" total athletic ability.

 

Mickey Mantle, Bo Jackson, Hershel Walker, Mike Tyson, all being examples.

 

You have guys who are faster but less powerful. Bigger but not as fast and agile. I think Lawrence Taylor would be an example of a natural 6'3", 240, with absurd athleticism and speed (4.5 40-yard dash) and strength/power to physically take on 300 pounders and then hammer a 220 pound running back into the ground.

 

But, you take Bo Jackson, at 6'1, 225 pounds, 4.13 in the 40-yard dash, 10.39 in the 100MM (for context, Carl Lewis set the record at 9.92 in 1988, now Usain Bolt set it at 9.58), and clearly an absurd combination of speed, strength/power, and agility. You wonder if he's the best all around athlete to ever walk the planet ; )

 

 

 

[Lark]

Tiger had two different two-year stretches where he won more than 50% of the tournaments he played. So it's possible. Nicklaus won just under 40% in 1973. If you think Jack, Tiger and Hogan are the top-three GOATs, then sure Hogan today in his best peak play could be around there. Also, Nelson only came close to and over 50% during WWII.

[Lark]

Of the 19 players with at least 20 wins who played predominantly after WWII, 6 had the prime of their careers in the 1990s and later.

[Shilgy]

I would think playing every event would mean more wins, yes. But not a higher percentage of wins.That is “tournaments they played”. I was talking about over 50% of all events. I think you would agree the top players tend to play a similar schedule. So for three guys to win 30 events in one year?

 

In this conversation I am not denigrating the old guys. Just putting their win totals in perspective. We had a thread a while back where someone posted along the lines of “winners gonna win” and that because they are winners would “win at the same rate in any era”. My question to him, never received an answer though lol, was if you had a season where all of the greats competed together they could not all “win at their rate” as there are not enough wins to go around. That is what greater depth/increased competition does to win totals.

 

[Shilgy]

Heck, let’s include Rory and make it 7 of 20. In the 90’s, 00’s and 20teens. That leaves 13 of the 20 in 50’s, 60’s 70’s and 80’s. One extra decade and practically twice as many. And they had 10 players with 22+ versus just 4.

[Body_Visions]

Maybe that is all that needs to be said?