Is this the weakest era in golf?

[Dave230]

Funny to use "when has Rahm last won a tournament?" as a reason, when he was just 6 shots ahead in a tournament last week and possibly would have broken the scoring record in the tournament only for very unusual circumstances.

[jonsnow]

19 hours ago, johnseg said:

This discussion always comes up and there seems to be two camps. The field is so strong no one can dominate and the the field is weak.

 

Anytime there is an era with a truly dominant figure fields become too strong or two weak. I happen to think they don't really change a whole lot. You just these Super Novas that transcend the game for a period and they it goes back to normal. If you look at the Tiger Era which I will define as 1997-2011 you had 60 majors and 7 guys win multiple majors and a total of 37 different individuals. And while you have 7 guys win 30 it still shows that there were a lot of different winners.

 

In 2012-2019 there were 32 majors and 5 guys win multiple majors and a total of 23 different individuals. Again this list has 5 guys account for 14 but still relatively the same.

 

The real outlier is tiger getting 14 in the first period.

 

There will be another golfer come along and dominate again. I don't think it is anyone currently on tour but they will come.

Recency bias vs. nostalgia bias. Although we can all agree that Old Tom & Young Tom Morris would not have won 8 Open Championships in 12 years between them if they had to compete against Tom Watson, right?

[Titleist99]

I think that any Pro golfer could play well in any era regardless of equipment, conditions, competition, etc.... A couple of the things (IMO) that all Pros share is the competitive drive and the search for excellence. To me the biggest difference is cash$$$ on today Tour one win and you're set for a long time ($2M). Jacks Nicklaus first professional paycheck was $33.33 for 50th Place. At his tournament Jack Paid around $25K for 50th place. You could pay some bills with that or get a new car.....IMO

[Big GG]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I think that any Pro golfer could play well in any era regardless of equipment, conditions, competition, etc.... A couple of the things (IMO) that all Pros share is the competitive drive and the search for excellence. To me the biggest difference is cash$$$ on today Tour one win and you're set for a long time ($2M). Jacks Nicklaus first professional paycheck was $33.33 for 50th Place. At his tournament Jack Paid around $25K for 50th place. You could pay some bills with that or get a new car.....IMO

Yeah you could could get a new car if you didn't pay taxes on those earnings. However you can't buy a new car after taxes on $25K. Also you have money in travel and food for the week along with whatever you pay your agent.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Big GG
Spelling

[gvogel]

On 6/9/2021 at 9:59 AM, handyquacks17 said:

Its funny sonny has this opinion when any current top 70 golfer in a time machine could go to the 1980s play that equipment and play very well.  The competition is the best its ever been which is why players do not win as consistently.   

YEs, but if the equipment was harder to play (like in the 1980's), it's likely that a few guys would be at the top more often.

[bcski]

OP:  In answer to your question in your title.  Nope.

[jons1]

The clubs and golf balls keep making it easier.  It's harder for someone to dominate a game that is a game of misses with a wider margin of error.

 

It's not any more complicated than that.

 

The players themselves are as good or better than anyone else that ever played the game... it's just not the same game.

Edited June 11, 2021 by jons1

[jkumpire]

Wow,

 

This is worse than doing an exegesis on hitting a ball one groove too high.

 

Holy trap draw Batman.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

On 6/9/2021 at 12:59 PM, bscinstnct said:

 

Agree but it also dispels the notion that there are a bunch of guys close to Tigers level in the top 10.

 

None is anywhere close to TW 1.0. Just like back 15 years ago. 

 

Tiger is the greatest to ever do it, who in their right mind would claim any of the current crop is close. DJ might get to around 40 wins or so best case? JT could potentially get to a similar level but no one is sniffing what Tiger did. And he alone doesn't make his era strong..

 

On 6/9/2021 at 1:04 PM, nvr3putt said:

I think it's in part due to high-definition video capture which has revealed Tiger's secret sauce...his swing mechanics. 15 years ago, teaching professionals didn't even fully understand the physics of hitting a draw/fade. 

 

Which mechanics? Tiger's secret sauce was talent, work/determination, and his mind. 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by TLUBulldogGolf

[bscinstnct]

19 hours ago, Don George said:

Yes, the tour has gotten better from 07, though no one has reached peak (08) Tiger.

 

http://datagolfblogs.ca/an-intergenerational-approach-to-ranking-pga-tour-players/

 

Data also says that the [I]average[/I] modern PGA tour pro is better than Nicklaus in the 80s

 

[IMG]https://ibb.co/n8x36qW[/IMG]
[IMG]https://ibb.co/sJ2fdXv[/IMG]

 

Data be like,

A picture says a million data points ; )

 

 

 

[KRAMER1997]

IDK about weakest, but these guys are the some of the softest Prima Donna's in all of sports!

[rob0225]

It's the weakest era in general.  We have a generation of pansies who believe everything should be handed to them.  Look at how many refuse to recognize Cantlay as the winner and think the trophy should just be given to Rahm.

[jdl]

[Mcjanzton]

The skill level and the floor has been raised significantly the last 20 years, and that’s good. 

 

I think the golden days were the late 80’s to early 90’s when Faldo, Seve and the lot were at their peak. Nicklaus was still active, you had Daly incoming, Boom Boom, The Shark etc. 
 

So much more soul and character players, with more diversity in terms of playstyle & swing. Lancer, Woosnam, Stewart,

Pavin the list goes on and on and on. 
 

Now they’re all so bland and boring. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

On 6/9/2021 at 12:19 AM, sonnygolf said:

Old man Phil becoming the oldest player to win a major at 50

Tiger with a busted body winning the Masters and also first time winning from behind

The so called hottest player since Tiger, Rory not won a major since 7 years ago and now ranked 30th 

Rory Spieth, Day, Brooksie, Rickie long spells of years of not winning and  only now down winning weak field tournaments once or at most twice a year 

Bryson the most hyped player since Tiger with the media saying he has changed the game of golf and exposed as a gimmick. 

The worst PGA scoring average (69.78)  since 1991 even though distance has increased, techinolgy is 10x better.

Rahm word number one and never won a major , when last did he win on tour? Lol 

 

These guys a fat and bloated with too much money.  As long as they get a few top 10's and occasional win in years and keep their sponsors happy by doing sposnor work - it's mission accomplished. 

 

Most people I know that were really into golf and hyped with the young generation of the Rorys. Spieths, DJ, Day et al have given up and rarely watch golf. Even the energy on this forum is flat and forced. No one cares except a few nerds. 

 

Got to thank Phil for injecting some energy for his win but now we are back to reality of the bore that is the pga tour.  Tbh its not just pga its every tour. Eurotour is a complete joke. Lpga is dead - no dominant player  (which  was the only thing that made the tour interesting) and the no star who captures the media attention. 

 

GOLF should be spelt DEAD 

 

 

[HackDaddy360]

On 6/9/2021 at 6:07 AM, smashdn said:

I am not a DJ fan but he seems to be doing alright.

 

There is way more talent in the middle of the pack and upper middle of the pack now than in eras prior.

I think that’s right. 
 

The tour is pretty deep with talent - winning week in and week out is a good goal but not something I think we’ll see a lot of going forward - too many guys rip it and can get hit with the putter and contend.  

On 6/9/2021 at 9:22 AM, bscinstnct said:

 

Here is owgr 2007 vs 2019.

 

See any familiar names? 

 

In fact, “old timers” Rose and Casey were ranked higher in 2019 than they were 12 years prior in their primes.

 

Seem pretty equal as far as “big time” talent.

 

Plus, TW being #5 at 42 years old and with a broken body and a shadow of his 1.0 game throws cold 🥶 water on any arguments these current guys are uber golfers. Same with JRose at #4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or it could be a function of fitness, drive and motivation to keep playing even though they’re financially set. 
 

I hit it harder now than in college, for instance, which is almost two decades in the rear view - and it’s improving.   I’m a hack compared to these guys and have probably 1/100th the amount of time to practice - with more time I could probably be as good or better than I was in college decades on - and a huge part of that is golf/life experience. 
 

30 years ago a 50 looked a lot more like 50 than it does today. Now players are putting time in on their fitness, general health and wellness and they have a ton of experience - it doesn’t mean the young guys suck - it just means some of the game’s greatest players continue to play well longer than in the past.  Phil is a great example - he’s 50 but his attitude/fitness/style/swag/perspective is probably better than it was when he was 35.  
 

Age does have some benefits over youth - not a lot, but definitely some, so I can’t say the above list makes me say the tour is weak. 

[2over]

It is weaker only in that there is not a consistently dominant star or two like Watson, Nicklaus, Faldo, Phil, or Tiger. But it is far stronger from world top 11-160 than it has ever been--which is why I would say the "weakness" of the world's top 10 is only relative to the far greater strength of field today. I don't think even Tiger or Jack would win double digit majors if they were rookies in 2015. They would still win more than anyone else in their era, I would think, but up through the early 00s there were about 30 guys in a PGA tour event field that could win. Today literally anyone in a standard PGA tour event field can win the tournament.

 

Golf is stronger than it's ever been in terms of the talent and performance of the PGA tour pros, I would say, and here's a first hand observation to support that claim...

 

I played some golf and practiced several times with Ben Curtis (remember him? 2003 Open Champion) back in the late 90's before he went on tour. A marvelous short game and fabulous distance control on his irons. But he didn't hit any farther than I did as a late 30 something, not especially long, 2 hc. I doubt Ben's driver swing speed ever cracked 108 and 250 seemed max carry with a driver on the range for him. This was a couple years before he went on tour. Maybe he got slightly longer on tour.

 

I've practiced many times in the last few years with a 20 something former US AM semifinalist and current Korn Ferry tour player (with Trackman to give precise numbers) who is superior in every facet of the game to Ben (maybe slightly less good a putter, but a guy who can shoot 63-64 in a college tourney on a 7500 yard Arnold Palmer course with rock hard, 13 stimp greens can putt, I assure you, just fine!). And this Korn Ferry tour player had to scramble just to keep his card last year! He carries his driver easily 310+. OK, today we have a better driver, livelier ball, probably. But it's no problem for him to fly a muscle back 5 iron (same type of club/loft as Ben played) 220 and land it in a 25 foot circle over and over and over. If Ben rolled out, on a firm green, a 5 iron 200 yards that was a good shot for him. And he is a major champion. 

 

Small sample size, I grant you, but I have no doubt the PGA tour is stronger than it's ever been, top to bottom.

 

Which makes Phil's win an absolutely amazing once in a generation accomplishment!

Edited June 14, 2021 by 2over

[bscinstnct]

6 minutes ago, 2over said:

It is weaker only in that there is not a consistently dominant star or two like Watson, Nicklaus, Faldo, Phil, or Tiger. But it is far stronger from world top 11-160 than it has ever been--which is why I would say the "weakness" of the world's top 10 is only relative to the far greater strength of field today. I don't think even Tiger or Jack would win double digit majors if they were rookies in 2015. They would still win more than anyone else in their era, I would think, but up through the early 00s there were about 30 guys in a PGA tour event field that could win. Today literally anyone in a standard PGA tour event field can win the tournament.

 

Golf is stronger than it's ever been in terms of the talent and performance of the PGA tour pros, I would say, and here's a first hand observation to support that claim...

 

I played some golf and practiced several times with Ben Curtis (remember him? 2003 Open Champion) back in the late 90's before he went on tour. A marvelous short game and fabulous distance control on his irons. But he didn't hit any farther than I did as a late 30 something, not especially long, 2 hc. I doubt Ben's driver swing speed ever cracked 108 and 250 seemed max carry with a driver on the range for him. This was a couple years before he went on tour. Maybe he got slightly longer on tour.

 

I've practiced many times in the last few years with a 20 something former US AM semifinalist and current Korn Ferry tour player (with Trackman to give precise numbers) who is superior in every facet of the game to Ben (maybe slightly less good a putter, but a guy who can shoot 63-64 in a college tourney on a 7500 yard Arnold Palmer course with rock hard, 13 stimp greens can putt, I assure you, just fine!). And this Korn Ferry tour player had to scramble just to keep his card last year! He carries his driver easily 310+. OK, today we have a better driver, livelier ball, probably. But it's no problem for him to fly a muscle back 5 iron (same type of club/loft as Ben played) 220 and land it in a 25 foot circle over and over and over. If Ben rolled out, on a firm green, a 5 iron 200 yards that was a good shot for him. And he is a major champion. 

 

Small sample size, I grant you, but I have no doubt the PGA tour is stronger than it's ever been, top to bottom.

 

Which makes Phil's win an absolutely amazing once in a generation accomplishment!

agree with you except on TW

 

If he started in 2015 he would have played the modern driver his whole life instead of persimmon as a kid, then small steel heads/steel shafts, then having to adjust to toaster heads and graphite.

 

Hed be as long as Bryson but still the best in every other aspect of the game.

 

And the Masters 2019 win/getting to #5 owgr at 42 in in decrepit physical condition and a shadow of his prime game threw ice water on the argument these guys are really that great at all. 

[johnseg]

27 minutes ago, 2over said:

...But it is far stronger from world top 11-160 than it has ever been--which is why I would say the "weakness" of the world's top 10 is only relative to the far greater strength of field today. I don't think even Tiger or Jack would win double digit majors if they were rookies in 2015.

I am not sure how you can make that as a statement fact. I prime example is at the end of 1989 and the end of 2019 you had Fuzz Zoeller and Brandt Snedeker both ranked 47 in the OWGR's. Can you say that one is really better than the other? Number 100's were Jim Carter and Jorge Campillo and I don't really see a big difference there either. I know that the OWGR's are kind of funny due to not knowing how much a guy is playing (is he coming up or dropping) but it is a way to measure.

 

I think all eras are the same except every now and then you get a transcendent talent that changes everything, but only at the top.

[me05501]

I disagree with the OP.

 

OTOH I think there are a ton of players who are happy to have their card and anxious to keep it, but not necessarily in possession of that killer instinct that is required to get into the top ten. Kisner said it perfectly: "The pay pretty well for 20th place out here." 

 

Ironically I think this is the other side of the so-called Tiger Effect. Tiger inspired a TON of young athletes to focus on golf. He made it cooler and definitely made it more lucrative. But he also stuck around for a long time, so long that some of the guys he inspired grew up to become his rivals. 

 

For every Rory or Spieth who was inspired to contend for majors, there are probably two dozen Scottie Schefflers who are happy to make a few million bucks a year while enjoying plenty of time off. 

 

Guys like Kisner seem more "inspired by" guys like Boo Weekly who treat the Tour like the best living they are capable of making between hunting and fishing trips.