My generation so bland in terms of top tour results

[Hankshank]

Lets say the early X-gen, born 62-67. You can start looking at major wins, tops of Pga tour money list dating back to the 80’s as well as Charles Schwab cups now. There is an odd Colin, Vijay, Love and Miguel Angel. But, if you compare with the guys before and after they eclipse our generation totally. The Goosens and the Mickelsons still takes over after the Langers. Why is that? The flower power teachers in school not exactly pushing for the golf lifestyle?

Edited January 22, 2022 by Hankshank

[iBanesto]

So the tour players from the 1990's to 2000's are an inferior era?

 

I don't agree with that.

[Hankshank]

30 minutes ago, iBanesto said:

So the tour players from the 1990's to 2000's are an inferior era?

 

I don't agree with that.

Take a look here 

https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.109.y1989.html

ad go back and forth through the years and tell me guys born 62-67 aren’t eerily poor represented in the top 10. Especially the years around 90 when “we” should have been at our best. The Normans eclipsed us totally.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Hankshank

[iBanesto]

If you're using 1990 as a reference point.

 

Your players would have been 23 to 28 years old.

 

It was more common back then for players to peak in their 30's and even 40's (e.g. Vijay and Miguel).

 

Even when Tiger broke through in the mid 1990's at a young age, that was essentially an outlier.

[Hankshank]

16 minutes ago, iBanesto said:

If you're using 1990 as a reference point.

 

Your players would have been 23 to 28 years old.

 

It was more common back then for players to peak in their 30's and even 40's (e.g. Vijay and Miguel).

 

Even when Tiger broke through in the mid 1990's at a young age, that was essentially an outlier.

Move up to 1995, still very few in that age group. Take a look at 1996… 🙂

 

Vijay had his remarkable 40’s(during the Tiger Swing change), no denying that but that’s the exception. Miguel Angel is no Seve, Norman or Faldo as well as no Furyk, Goosen or Mickelson. Colin was big in europe, but… 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Hankshank

[iBanesto]

19 minutes ago, Hankshank said:

Move up to 1995, still very few in that age group.

 

Vijay had his remarkable 40’s, no denying that but that’s the exception

 

I guess at the end of the day there will never be an even distribution of "eras" winning majors etc.

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by iBanesto

[Hankshank]

43 minutes ago, iBanesto said:

 

I guess at the end of the day there will never be an even distribution of "eras" winning majors etc.

 

But one wonder, as you Ibanesto also probably know, at the remarkable number of top athletes born In Scandinavia the years around 1956. Björn Borg, Ingemar Stenmark(best alpine skier ever).   Is that just coincidence? Or does that say something about the climate in the society in the years when youngsters take their first steps? For sure, some sports gets popular certain years, and a star will sometimes inspire youngsters to start that sport. Sometimes things happens for a reason. 
 

But I cannot really say why so few Faldos or Mickelsons was produced during those years (Vijay grew up in Fiji islands…)

[Mustard_Tiger]

5 years is a really small period of time to judge players. A generation is typically considered to be 20 or more years.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Mustard_Tiger

[iBanesto]

25 minutes ago, Hankshank said:

But one wonder, as you Ibanesto also probably know, at the remarkable number of top athletes born In Scandinavia the years around 1956. Björn Borg, Ingemar Stenmark(best alpine skier ever).   Is that just coincidence? Or does that say something about the climate in the society in the years when youngsters take their first steps? For sure, some sports gets popular certain years, and a star will sometimes inspire youngsters to start that sport. Sometimes things happens for a reason. 
 

But I cannot really say why so few Faldos or Mickelsons was produced during those years (Vijay grew up in Fiji islands…)

 

Well there are so many variables which may affect the success of a group/nation in sport.

 

Borg was the influence for Swedish tennis from the 1980's to around the early 2000's.

• Wilander
• Edberg
• Nystrom
• Jarryd
• Svensson
• Sundstrom
• Carlsson
• Pernfors
• Gustafsson
• Enqvist
• Johansson

But what happened after Soderling retired? I assume there was shift cultural shift away from tennis?

 

Your example of 1962-1967 is a very small sample size.

 

Singh (3 majors), Olazabal (2), Janzen (2), Daly (2), Elkington (1), Love III (1), Hamilton (1) and Toms (1) is pretty good I reckon.

[iBanesto]

Stenmark may be considered an outlier for Swedish male alpine skiing, I don't think his dominance led to many top Swedish alpine skiiers.

 

Swedish male cross country skiiers were dominant in the 1980 with the Olympics, World Championships and World Cups. Then again around 2010 to 2014 (less the World Cup). Now there doesn't seem to be anyone.

 

"Times change and people change with it."

[Forged4ever]

Lolol, @iBanesto & @Hankshank should have your own thread with the occasional great point by @Mustard_Tiger and we can just sit back, read and enjoy😂😂

 

Good stuff Gents🤙
 

Stay Well👊
RP

Edited January 22, 2022 by Forged4ever

[golfortennis]

People try to put us down...

[MtlJeff]

as has been said 5 years is a pretty short timeframe especially in a historical greatness context

 

I bet if you wanted you could find a 5 year gap in NBA or NFL talent, like a period where there were far fewer hall of famers etc. Just due to random chance

[jholz]

The birth years you cite, '62-67 coincide with a rather rapid decline in the birth rate, so there were fewer potential tour players than the generations that preceded them.

 

Subsequent generations benefitted from the Tiger effect, of course, so even though birth rates continue to remain relatively low, a greater percentage of that population was being attracted to golf - either directly because of Tiger, or the increased fame and fortune that he brought to the game. 

 

Gen X was raised in the era of plaid pants, golf shoes with kilties, and the etc. I'm on the later side of Gen X, but in the late 70's and early 80's, I remember golf as about the least cool thing a kid could be involved in. Caddyshack barely saved the culture.

 

It's not surprising that the era failed to create many notable players. 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by jholz

[bscinstnct]

I think I know what Hs is getting at.

 

Seems we went from eras where 9 plus majors was possible, then went down to where 6 Majors was the high bar, then down to where it seemed like 2-4 was what was possible. People just thought the fields were too deep. 

 

Then TW hit and blew things apart. 
 

Then Rory came along, Spieth, BK. And won at a clip that looked like we’d have guys that could win 8+ again. Great to see Phil get up there with 6

 

But, nobody in the generation currently in their “prime” done has more than 4 yet ; )

[MtlJeff]

24 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

I think I know what Hs is getting at.

 

Seems we went from eras where 9 plus majors was possible, then went down to where 6 Majors was the high bar, then down to where it seemed like 2-4 was what was possible. People just thought the fields were too deep. 

 

Then TW hit and blew things apart. 
 

Then Rory came along, Spieth, BK. And won at a clip that looked like we’d have guys that could win 8+ again. Great to see Phil get up there with 6

 

But, nobody in the generation currently in their “prime” done has more than 4 yet ; )

 

The field depth is one where i wonder how we will view over time. I don't think there's any question it's way harder to win 10+ majors now than it was. But it's not like the NBA where you can just point to there being 8 teams in 1965 and being like "yeah, that's why the Celtics could win 9 years in a row"

 

In golf there's just 100 guys in a tournament. In 2017 the 97th guy is amazing and probably was ranged 8th at one point. In 1967 the 97th guy showed up at the course that morning thinking he was there to play with his buddies from the saw mill, and accidentally got signed up for the event and finished 97. Hugely different eras

 

So i forgive the guys playing now for only having 4-5 way more than those jabronis from '62 to '67

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

The field depth is one where i wonder how we will view over time. I don't think there's any question it's way harder to win 10+ majors now than it was. But it's not like the NBA where you can just point to there being 8 teams in 1965 and being like "yeah, that's why the Celtics could win 9 years in a row"

 

In golf there's just 100 guys in a tournament. In 2017 the 97th guy is amazing and probably was ranged 8th at one point. In 1967 the 97th guy showed up at the course that morning thinking he was there to play with his buddies from the saw mill, and accidentally got signed up for the event and finished 97. Hugely different eras

 

So i forgive the guys playing now for only having 4-5 way more than those jabronis from '62 to '67

Oh geez…now ya did it! One mention of field depth and @Forged4everwill have to bow out! Lol.🤣

[MtlJeff]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Oh geez…now ya did it! One mention of field depth and @Forged4everwill have to bow out! Lol.🤣

 

I layed it on reaaaaaaaal thick too!

 

Everyone worked in saw mills in the 60s right?

[amace04]

I wonder how much of this is due to a shift in golfer being more athletic at a younger age?

Guys who were in their prime in the 80s/90s typically weren't the athletes they are today or early 200s.   You had your odd guy like John Daly who was super talented and incredibly strong, but most certainly did not focus on himself as an athlete.  More typical was just your ho-hum average guy with a bit of a gut, oversized clothes and you wouldn't think twice if you saw him walking down the supermarket aisle.

 

Since the Tiger era began, you see more and more guys coming out who have been taking better care of themselves since a younger age, as well as older guys getting into shape and performing better.  Look at Phil.  It took him forever to win a major, and he'd always been more of a less athletic guy.  Now the guy is absolutely ripped, winning a major in his 50s, dominating the champions tour whenever he plays.

 

Now, if you're not an athlete, you are the exception on tour.  Doesn't matter if you're young or old, you need to be fit.

 

My guess is the athleticism of the younger generation eclipsed the previous generation before their "prime" ever really hit for most.

[bscinstnct]

10 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

The field depth is one where i wonder how we will view over time. I don't think there's any question it's way harder to win 10+ majors now than it was. But it's not like the NBA where you can just point to there being 8 teams in 1965 and being like "yeah, that's why the Celtics could win 9 years in a row"

 

In golf there's just 100 guys in a tournament. In 2017 the 97th guy is amazing and probably was ranged 8th at one point. In 1967 the 97th guy showed up at the course that morning thinking he was there to play with his buddies from the saw mill, and accidentally got signed up for the event and finished 97. Hugely different eras

 

So i forgive the guys playing now for only having 4-5 way more than those jabronis from '62 to '67

 

Ooh money looks sweet

 

Where?

 

In the Isuzu jeep!

 

🤣

[MtlJeff]

38 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Ooh money looks sweet

 

Where?

 

In the Isuzu jeep!

 

🤣

 

In the 'aughts, Tiger came along and took all of their Rolex watches and colorful swatches

 

He was digging in pockets and they couldn't stop it!

[cdnglf]

They were busy playing real sports?

 

Mario Lemieux, 1965

Roger Clemens, 1962

Randy Johnson, 1963

Barry Bonds, 1964

Michael Jordan, 1963

Jerry Rice, 1962

Edited January 22, 2022 by cdnglf

[Hawkeye77]

I don't even want to contemplate the frightening and weird demographic implications of generations that span 5 years  -  I guess we're lucky these genetic freaks of nature (or the final frontier) just turn out "bland".

 

So yes, everything was boring on Tour after 1986 until 1997? So say many, "no" say me!

[golfortennis]

In most sports, 5 years is a generation, athletically speaking.  Only the truly great span multiple 5 year eras.  Due to its longevity, golf is an outlier in that regard.  

 

CDN golf posted a list of great athletes born during the particular era.  But if you were to look at "second level" athletes from the same time frame, most of them would not be considered top of the game outside their particular 5 year prime.  They would have very good careers, but unlike the top stars, new, younger players have replaced them in the upper echelon.

 

Golf has a similar phenomenon, but a 5 year span may be too short.  Maybe 10 is more appropriate. I don't know.  But in most sports, 5 years is the grouping you want to look at because it's very skewed otherwise.

[Hankshank]

The 5 ys interval can of course be discussed, but as far as trends and preferences goes, much can change in 5 ys.

[bscinstnct]

[TiScape]

4 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Love it! Works for the thread and the NY Giants!! Nice of you to bring Lawrence out for the playoffs. 😝

Edited January 22, 2022 by TiScape

[bscinstnct]

13 minutes ago, TiScape said:

Love it! Works for the thread and the NY Giants!! Nice of you to bring Lawrence out for the playoffs. 😝

 

🤣 

 

giants be more like

 

 

 

 

Brady just lucky he never faced LT and that team. Sure, The last Giants teams beat him twice in the SB and ruined his best season, but at least he got to walk away in one piece!

 

Here what happens when you put a bounty on LT ; )

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by bscinstnct

[TiScape]

6 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

🤣 

 

giants be more like

 

 

 

 

 

But here what happens when you put a bounty on LT ; )

 

Brady just lucky he never faced LT and that team. Sure, The last Giants teams beat him twice and ruined his best season, but at least he got to walk away…

 

 

He was a beast. If he played in today’s game he would have 4-5 personal fouls a game!  Can’t hit em high, can’t hit em low, can’t hit em after the ball is released, can’t “drive ‘em into the ground”… 😜

Edited January 22, 2022 by TiScape

[Hawkeye77]

5 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Oh geez…now ya did it! One mention of field depth and @Forged4everwill have to bow out! Lol.🤣

Irrelevant!