Is this what golf was like in the 90s?

[smashdn]

Jimenez's moustache game was strong.

 

Tobasco shirts and pleated tan dress pants.

[King_Slender]

There are several factors playing into the current leveling of the playing field in golf that I think have nothing really to do with the talent level being higher across the board.  

 

1) Technology - In he 90's (and certainly pre Big Bertha) you basically had everyone playing similar clubs and your choices in shafts were basically regular or stiff with some manual modifications for swing weight.  Now technology is so specific to every player (1000's of shaft options, complete customization of where driver heads are weighted) that it has balanced out the differences between the #10 and #500 player in the world significantly.

 

2) Same as #1, but green reading books.  Again, everyone has the same information and there is little room for having an innate ability to read greens.  Rarely do these guys hit a putt that surprises them.

 

3) Money.  With the amount of money guys make now, you have to be a special breed to truly want to be the best and crush the competition.  With enough game to stay on Tour (an accomplishment in itself, no doubt) you can be a relative nobody in terms of moving the needle (Kevin Na, Rory Sabbatini) and have made $35,000,000 in prize money without anyone even noticing.  John Rollins - who I couldn't pick out of a lineup - has made $18,000,000 on tour.  Unless you're a rare cat like Tiger, there simply isn't a need to win on tour.

 

We won't see dominance even approaching Tiger again - just be glad you were alive to witness it.

[Shilgy]

20 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

If they did, I am not aware of it. 

 

Sportswriters have all sorts of brainstorms only for them to turn to drizzles. lol  One thing is clear, Tours should reevaluate payout structure and sponsors should rethink compensation for lack of notable performance.  Too many people are making a great deal of money, and they never have to see the limelight or face cameras of the day.

 

Back in JN, AP, Trevino, Watson, and Gary Players day, pay-outs were limited to those that made themselves known as the top 3.  Most Pros then had NO sponsors, got no attention from the media, and depending on the event, if they were not in the top 5, no money.  They did, however, get all sorts of free equipment, only free equipment didn't pay the bills.  In other words the aforementioned top 3-5 guys performed.

 

Much like today, many guys played in events, but they were not good enough to place in the money or make a living, so they eventually quit pro golf, as it should be.   As it is, too many are making a 1M a year and nobody hears from them.  They don't have to perform for a relatively high level of income...that's wrong.  In business, lack of performance means you're NOT going to even see 250k a year.  Isn't the point of paying professional big money for them to have a notable influence in some market?

 

At the Heritage, 65 guys made the cut.  Ask yourself how many we saw on camera for more than a moment.  Number 65 made $15,265 for a week of golf + sponsor funding, what ever that may be.  I don't even know #65's name.  Number 20 made $90,405 for the same week of golf.  Imagine #20 plays 30 events = 2.7M+ income.  My greater point IS - they are paid like they are HIGH performance professional athletes in the limelight, yet nothing of the kind.

What does the 100th best businessman in the world make? Some, like your post above, make it sound like #100  in the world at an endeavor is awful. 
When actually it is awfully good.  If you only have the top “3-5” players participating the money goes away and it’s 1945 tour golf all over again.

Yay?!?!

[pinhigh27]

20 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

If they did, I am not aware of it. 

 

Sportswriters have all sorts of brainstorms only for them to turn to drizzles. lol  One thing is clear, Tours should reevaluate payout structure and sponsors should rethink compensation for lack of notable performance.  Too many people are making a great deal of money, and they never have to see the limelight or face cameras of the day.

 

Back in JN, AP, Trevino, Watson, and Gary Players day, pay-outs were limited to those that made themselves known as the top 3.  Most Pros then had NO sponsors, got no attention from the media, and depending on the event, if they were not in the top 5, no money.  They did, however, get all sorts of free equipment, only free equipment didn't pay the bills.  In other words the aforementioned top 3-5 guys performed.

 

Much like today, many guys played in events, but they were not good enough to place in the money or make a living, so they eventually quit pro golf, as it should be.   As it is, too many are making a 1M a year and nobody hears from them.  They don't have to perform for a relatively high level of income...that's wrong.  In business, lack of performance means you're NOT going to even see 250k a year.  Isn't the point of paying professional big money for them to have a notable influence in some market?

 

At the Heritage, 65 guys made the cut.  Ask yourself how many we saw on camera for more than a moment.  Number 65 made $15,265 for a week of golf + sponsor funding, what ever that may be.  I don't even know #65's name.  Number 20 made $90,405 for the same week of golf.  Imagine #20 plays 30 events = 2.7M+ income.  My greater point IS - they are paid like they are HIGH performance professional athletes in the limelight, yet nothing of the kind.

your frame of reference is so skewed, arbitrary and off.

 

2.7 million would be like 20-30th on tour most years. aka you are the 20-30th best golfer in the world, thats pretty dang good. 

 

How many CEOs make 2.7 million? are they the 20-30th best CEO in the world? Are they overpaid? They're not the best, right? 

 

People get paid what they're worth. It's strange to just arbitrarily say golfers are getting paid too much. I'm pretty sure you probably know 65 names of tour players or you don't really watch golf. 

 

PS there are a ton of executives that straight up tank companies that receive golden parachutes of tens of millions of dollars on the way out. The concept of " lack of performance is business means you wont see 250k" is hilariously wrong and bad. Essentially any executive at any company any of us have heard of are making more than that, regardless of their skill level. 

[RichieHunt]

19 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

 

 

cant go along with that at all. Or any other decade.. look at the difference in club technology and course maintenance.

 

Todays pro has a nervous breakdown if you try and take his 460 off him

 

They had bigger breakdowns back when Tiger was dominating.  Guys would start to get good then make a swing change and never be heard from again.  Guys would 'lose their swing' right in the prime of their career.

 

Patrick Rodgers can look as good as anybody from the 80's and 90's at times, but in today's Tour he's basically a JAG.  And he was a stud in college.

 

The meltdowns are far and few between because the technology geared towards training and fitting is so much better.  Much more difficult for a player to 'lose their swing' that it was 20 years ago.  Still happens, but it's far less frequent and is usually reserved for players in their 40's where careers have usually tapered off regardless of the era.

 

 

 

 

RH

[RichieHunt]

2 hours ago, Scotty1140 said:

 

I think a huge, yet often over looked aspect of this is how much more advanced youth golf is today. I grew up playing golf in the 90's and the difference in not only the quality of instruction, but the sheer amount of resources one has now compared to then is staggering. I love watching the DC&P at Augusta every year. Even at such young ages many of those kids are already so technically sound. From instruction to competitive settings, youth golf (like all other sports really) is so much more advanced than in the past, there's no comparison and is a big reason IMO why the depth of the field at the professional level is what it is.

 

 

I agree completely.

 

So many things have changed.  There were driving ranges back in the 80's and 90's when I was playing competitive junior and college golf.  But it's nothing like we see today with full ranges, indoor/outdoor hitting bays, launch monitors, video, etc.  In my neck of the woods we only had a few courses with full driving ranges.  Most of them were irons only (some only allowing you to hit shots less than 150 yards).  And the other ranges were poorly conditioned with horrible golf balls and were limited in terms of hours or operation.

 

Tiger really popularized the idea of playing AJGA events across the country.  Before then an AJGA event was primarily just players from the region.  Now you get kids traveling across the country and from other countries to play in these events.  And that helped spawn the IJGT and many other regional junior golf 'tours.'  

 

And a big part of the population in the US has just moved to the south for the warmer climate due to businesses moving south and there being better A/C technology. The state of Florida had a population of 13 million in 1990 and now has a population of 22 million.  That means more kids likely getting into golf and those kids being able to play and practice year round.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

 

[Soloman1]

True, more golf programs for kids now, but the stats show that most quit playing golf in high school as other things pull them away. The numbers playing through high school and above are higher, but essentially the same per capita as decades ago. There are some better players, though.

 

I know someone who's father says that the swing we're looking at cost a ton of money...

 

Most golf instruction in the 90's was dreadful. All hat and no cattle.

 

I suspect a lot of people lost their swing from instructors telling them swing killers, such as the wrong ball flight laws, or chasing aesthetics using only observations. Many regurgitated things that sounded good, but were nonsense. One out of 10 now is competent. I'll guess maybe one out of 30 in 90's knew what the heck they were talking about.

[RobotDoctor]

On 4/20/2021 at 12:00 AM, bladehunter said:

I own all of that except the visor.  And I didn’t play in the 90s.  

Same with me!!! 👍🏼

[RobotDoctor]

And in the 80s many used actual "wood" woods.  Greg Norman was really long and ready straight with this model driver.  
 

(this one is mine and recently restored by the same person who restored Norman's 1980s driver)

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by RobotDoctor

[Nard_S]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

Most golf instruction in the 90's was dreadful. All hat and no cattle.

100%. Big improvement in the game is video & computer analysis that dispel falsehoods & clarify solid principles. We're starting to see a commonality of ideas and a vocabulary that's finally setting things straight and making good things teachable to common guy.

[nvr3putt]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

I suspect a lot of people lost their swing from instructors telling them swing killers, such as the wrong ball flight laws, or chasing aesthetics using only observations. Many regurgitated things that sounded good, but were nonsense. One out of 10 now is competent. I'll guess maybe one out of 30 in 90's knew what the heck they were talking about.

 

Golf Digest had a lot to do with this. 😉

[Pepperturbo]

19 hours ago, golfandfishing said:

I don’t see how you can say 150 guys making a million bucks is “too many”. All other major sports dwarf that number by far. MLB has lots of guys hitting .200 or lower collecting a million bucks. I went to a Dbacks game last week and ONE FREAKING GUY in the starting lineup was hitting above .200 and they all flat out collect in free agency. 

True, except most of the other sports like MLB are team based payouts, until free-agent.  IMO that is not comparable to professional golf which is individual based from the get go.  Just because a football player makes millions does NOT mean a professional golfer should be paid similarly.  Amazing how people don't understand how compensation plans are created.  I won't get into my HR company or that it deals with these very subjects.  In simple terms, apples and oranges, one does not equal the other.

 

 

[golfandfishing]

4 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

True, except most of the other sports like MLB are team based payouts, until free-agent.  IMO that is not comparable to professional golf which is individual based from the get go.  Just because a football player makes millions does NOT mean a professional golfer should be paid similarly.  Amazing how people don't understand how compensation plans are created.  I won't get into my HR company or that it deals with these very subjects.  In simple terms, apples and oranges, one does not equal the other.

 

 

Sigh. Yeah, I know the NFL and PGA Tour aren’t the same thing. But saying that the 150th best player in the world should be a pauper while the 150th best football player in the world is a highly sought after player is naive and short sighted. Some people have this idea that the 150th guy on tour is hitting ground balls and yipping putts on his way to 83 every Thursday and Friday. 

[Pepperturbo]

1 minute ago, golfandfishing said:

Sigh. Yeah, I know the NFL and PGA Tour aren’t the same thing. But saying that the 150th best player in the world should be a pauper while the 150th best football player in the world is a highly sought after player is naive and short sighted. Some people have this idea that the 150th guy on tour is hitting ground balls and yipping putts on his way to 83 every Thursday and Friday. 

It's NOT short-sighted if you've ever had 250 people performing at different levels but many wanting the same pay and recognition for different jobs; all while performance level is not remotely the same.  One does NOT equal the other.  All factors have to be considered to see the differences or similarities in roles.  What you're doing is exaggerating to support your belief, ignoring whether its actually corresponding; that doesn't work with me.

[Pepperturbo]

4 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

your frame of reference is so skewed, arbitrary and off.

 

2.7 million would be like 20-30th on tour most years. aka you are the 20-30th best golfer in the world, thats pretty dang good. 

 

How many CEOs make 2.7 million? are they the 20-30th best CEO in the world? Are they overpaid? They're not the best, right? 

 

People get paid what they're worth. It's strange to just arbitrarily say golfers are getting paid too much. I'm pretty sure you probably know 65 names of tour players or you don't really watch golf. 

 

PS there are a ton of executives that straight up tank companies that receive golden parachutes of tens of millions of dollars on the way out. The concept of " lack of performance is business means you wont see 250k" is hilariously wrong and bad. Essentially any executive at any company any of us have heard of are making more than that, regardless of their skill level. 

What's skewed is the perception of people on discussion boards.  You're mixing apples and oranges and concluding based on simple perception of those events and what suits you.  I could get into this discussion on a more technical FACT level being a founder & CEO with forty years of experience in all HR services for Fortune 1000 clients, building a tech company and buying, selling other companies, etc., All of which have employees with diverse compensation pkgs, some in the millions.

 

PS it's best to just say you have a good day.

[pinhigh27]

18 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

It's NOT short-sighted if you've ever had 250 people performing at different levels but many wanting the same pay and recognition for different jobs; all while performance level is not remotely the same.  One does NOT equal the other.  All factors have to be considered to see the differences or similarities in roles.  What you're doing is exaggerating to support your belief, ignoring whether its actually corresponding; that doesn't work with me.

Who wants the same pay? 250 on the pga tour money list vs number 1 is millions of dollars apart

 

I respect the guys more who consistently plays well and cashes checks every week than the guy who has a flash in the pan week, gets a 2nd and makes 800k and then misses cuts for the rest of the year. The first guy is the better golfer for sure IMO. What you described would punish the first guy and reward the second. Not sure why it's considered better to be a flash in the pan. I think the way the money is doled out now relative to finishes is pretty good. Performance is rewarded. Getting 20th in a pga tour event is still a really good performance with some really good golf. I'm not sure how you arbitrarily decided that isn't. 

 

It's not like guys are getting 80th every week and keeping their cards. 

 

[golfandfishing]

3 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

It's NOT short-sighted if you've ever had 250 people performing at different levels but many wanting the same pay and recognition for different jobs; all while performance level is not remotely the same.  One does NOT equal the other.  All factors have to be considered to see the differences or similarities in roles.  What you're doing is exaggerating to support your belief, ignoring whether its actually corresponding; that doesn't work with me.

Man your company’s problems aren’t related to the tour, nfl, mlb or any other major sports league. The comparison between another league and the tour is way more relevant than your whatever the heck your company makes and it’s employees. Sorry you have a hard time keeping up with your employees, have a good day. 

[Tupperwolf]

I lived through the ball flight laws revolution here on WRX.  It was so strange having this feeling that the ball probably went where the face was pointed, but thousands of voices shouting that the ball went where the swing path got it started.  I feel like some of the Stack and Tilt instruction started to change things around, but I could be wrong.  It felt good when things started clearing up and making more sense to me.

[Ferguson]

Remember Yonex?    

Scott Hoch's interviews? 

 

 

[Big GG]

12 hours ago, golfandfishing said:

Man your company’s problems aren’t related to the tour, nfl, mlb or any other major sports league. The comparison between another league and the tour is way more relevant than your whatever the heck your company makes and it’s employees. Sorry you have a hard time keeping up with your employees, have a good day. 

The comparison between team sports and the tour is no where near relevant. It has always been the best man that week wins. Take the NHL. If a mediocre goaltender has a great team in front of him and doesn't face as many shots that year his numbers are far better. If it's a contract year for that goaltender he will get a bigger contract. That's just the way team sports work. The tour is a single man sport. You can only rely on yourself on tour. A guy in 50th place on tour should not be making anywhere near the same as the 20th guy on tour. It has been and always will be if you play well on tour you will make more money. If a tour player doesn't like the pay a 150th place either play better or find another job.

[pinhigh27]

39 minutes ago, Big GG said:

The comparison between team sports and the tour is no where near relevant. It has always been the best man that week wins. Take the NHL. If a mediocre goaltender has a great team in front of him and doesn't face as many shots that year his numbers are far better. If it's a contract year for that goaltender he will get a bigger contract. That's just the way team sports work. The tour is a single man sport. You can only rely on yourself on tour. A guy in 50th place on tour should not be making anywhere near the same as the 20th guy on tour. It has been and always will be if you play well on tour you will make more money. If a tour player doesn't like the pay a 150th place either play better or find another job.

Who has said anything different? The 50th place guy doesn't get paid anywhere near the 20th guy. At the RBC the 50th place guy literally got 1/5th the money the 20th guy got.

 

It's just a made up argument. There are huge differences in earnings between elite tour pros and not elite ones. There is way more parity in athlete pay in team sports than golf. Most team sports also have salary caps. 

[Big GG]

19 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Who has said anything different? The 50th place guy doesn't get paid anywhere near the 20th guy. At the RBC the 50th place guy literally got 1/5th the money the 20th guy got.

 

It's just a made up argument. There are huge differences in earnings between elite tour pros and not elite ones. There is way more parity in athlete pay in team sports than golf. Most team sports also have salary caps. 

That's what I was saying. Don't get me started on salary caps. Being a retired pro athlete I know all about caps as well as arbitration and all kinds of negotiating habits.

[bscinstnct]

29 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Who has said anything different? The 50th place guy doesn't get paid anywhere near the 20th guy. At the RBC the 50th place guy literally got 1/5th the money the 20th guy got.

 

It's just a made up argument. There are huge differences in earnings between elite tour pros and not elite ones. There is way more parity in athlete pay in team sports than golf. Most team sports also have salary caps. 

 

Is like actors.

 

 

You got a handful of the biggest stars makin the Leo D mega-yacht money

 

A bunch makin a living or maybe really good cash at any given time

 

And thousands waiting tables trying to make it into the show. 

 

 

 

 

[smashdn]

17 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

I respect the guys more who consistently plays well and cashes checks every week than the guy who has a flash in the pan week, gets a 2nd and makes 800k and then misses cuts for the rest of the year.

 

I get the respect side of things and rewarding consistent play but that is not how you make money on tour.  Tiger said this in an interview somewhere.  I brought it up one day here when we were discussing BDC.

 

It is far better, from a money-making standpoint, to go all out and win a few times in a short career than it is to have a long career where you are consistent but not winning.

 

The reason I brought that up regarding BDC is everyone was lamenting his poor back and how it will be shot by the time he is 35.  It is the NFL running-back phenomena.  You got to go and get paid, and go all out to get paid, because you have a very small window to do it in.

 

The money you can make in the short term while young serves the same purpose as finishing top 35 in a 20 year career.  Sort of how investments tend to work as well.  Invest an amount for five years when you are very young and it will often end up more money at 65 than if you had waited till you were 40 and invested that same amount for 25 years.

[bscinstnct]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I get the respect side of things and rewarding consistent play but that is not how you make money on tour.  Tiger said this in an interview somewhere.  I brought it up one day here when we were discussing BDC.

 

It is far better, from a money-making standpoint, to go all out and win a few times in a short career than it is to have a long career where you are consistent but not winning.

 

The reason I brought that up regarding BDC is everyone was lamenting his poor back and how it will be shot by the time he is 35.  It is the NFL running-back phenomena.  You got to go and get paid, and go all out to get paid, because you have a very small window to do it in.

 

The money you can make in the short term while young serves the same purpose as finishing top 35 in a 20 year career.  Sort of how investments tend to work as well.  Invest an amount for five years when you are very young and it will often end up more money at 65 than if you had waited till you were 40 and invested that same amount for 25 years.

 

With CHIII $40MM being the exception that proves the rule ; )

[golfandfishing]

1 hour ago, Big GG said:

The comparison between team sports and the tour is no where near relevant. It has always been the best man that week wins. Take the NHL. If a mediocre goaltender has a great team in front of him and doesn't face as many shots that year his numbers are far better. If it's a contract year for that goaltender he will get a bigger contract. That's just the way team sports work. The tour is a single man sport. You can only rely on yourself on tour. A guy in 50th place on tour should not be making anywhere near the same as the 20th guy on tour. It has been and always will be if you play well on tour you will make more money. If a tour player doesn't like the pay a 150th place either play better or find another job.

I think tour players at 150 like their pay fine, I don’t really see them complaining.  The people complaining are the ones in this thread that think the 150 guy is overpaid somehow. 

[Superbrit]

16 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I get the respect side of things and rewarding consistent play but that is not how you make money on tour.  Tiger said this in an interview somewhere.  I brought it up one day here when we were discussing BDC.

 

It is far better, from a money-making standpoint, to go all out and win a few times in a short career than it is to have a long career where you are consistent but not winning.

 

The reason I brought that up regarding BDC is everyone was lamenting his poor back and how it will be shot by the time he is 35.  It is the NFL running-back phenomena.  You got to go and get paid, and go all out to get paid, because you have a very small window to do it in.

 

The money you can make in the short term while young serves the same purpose as finishing top 35 in a 20 year career.  Sort of how investments tend to work as well.  Invest an amount for five years when you are very young and it will often end up more money at 65 than if you had waited till you were 40 and invested that same amount for 25 years.

 

mmm im not sure about that, look at Charles howell and how much money he has won and only won 3 times, then compare him to Hunter Mahan, charles Howell never got to the same level or won as many tournaments, but has been mr consistent for so long, Hunter won 9 times in about a 6 or 7 year streak, i think charles has earned about 10 mill more

[golfortennis]

37 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I get the respect side of things and rewarding consistent play but that is not how you make money on tour.  Tiger said this in an interview somewhere.  I brought it up one day here when we were discussing BDC.

 

It is far better, from a money-making standpoint, to go all out and win a few times in a short career than it is to have a long career where you are consistent but not winning.

 

The reason I brought that up regarding BDC is everyone was lamenting his poor back and how it will be shot by the time he is 35.  It is the NFL running-back phenomena.  You got to go and get paid, and go all out to get paid, because you have a very small window to do it in.

 

The money you can make in the short term while young serves the same purpose as finishing top 35 in a 20 year career.  Sort of how investments tend to work as well.  Invest an amount for five years when you are very young and it will often end up more money at 65 than if you had waited till you were 40 and invested that same amount for 25 years.

 

I don't think the winning is so much about the money per se, but the fact it brings exemptions, etc.  There is a category for past winners that can still get into tournaments.  Play that correctly and it can like an annuity.

[smashdn]

^ This.

 

And I want to clarify the Tiger thing i brought up.  He was speaking of riding a hot putter or hot streak to winning and that when the stars align you have to go win because winning was so important.  Important for the reasons stated above.

 

Winning a major, I have read, is especially game changing in terms of the doors it opens and keeps open.

[bscinstnct]

In 2019, #100 on the pga tour money list made $1MM

 

In 1991, #100 made $150,000 ($300, 000 inflation adjusted)

 

Amazing. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by bscinstnct