1997 Onward - Fields Stronger, Players Better, or Both?

[turtleback]

We've had a lot of discussion about field strength in the T v J debate but I'd like to look at it from a little different angle.  Because players getting better (or at least playing better) really, IMO, doesn't bear that much in the strength of field discussion. 

Virtually all of the field strength arguments came down to 2 critical factors, IMO, 1) expansion of the universe from which the fields are drawn, and 2) travel technology that makes it possible for anyone 'good enough' to play all of the top events they qualify for.  Nothing in the second category has really changed much from 1997 to now, but this has been a huge factor in the past.  So the question is, in the period of 1997 to now, have we seen an expansion in the top golf universe like the expansions we have seen in the past?  Where has it come from?  Has it expanded enough to say that fields today really ARE stronger than at the beginning of Tiger's career?  Or are the current crop of players drawn from a similarly sized universe but just play better.  And do they REALLY play better than the '97 generation of pros or is that appearance an artifact of continuing technological development?

Food for thought.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Technology helps for sure, but I think Tiger has directly influenced a generation of much better athletes playing the game. The technology revolution primarily occurred around 2001 to 2003. If we look at ball speed numbers in 2009, you can see a dramatic increase in the number of guys with incredible ball speed. 

2009 - #10 was Angel Cabrera at 177 mph
2019 - #34 is Seamus Power at 177 mph 

The top 17 guys are all above 180 mph this season. J.B. Holmes is 18th on the list at 179.30 mph. Brooks Koepka is 28th at 178.25 mph and Dustin Johnson is 29th at 178.07 mph. Jon Rahm is 40th on the list at 175.82 mph. These names being that far down the list is pretty strong evidence regarding the depth of physical talent on tour right now. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Dr. Manhattan

[Wally Fairway]

Although it started in 1990, I think that the Hogan/Nike/Nationwide/Web.com tour had a more pronounce effect starting closer to 2000. It allowed talented players a place to develop their skills, both mental and physical, instead of trying to jump right into the PGA Tour.
IMO - these guys all have a better chance to win than the club pros who used to fill out event. Club pros filled out events during Jacks days (most prominently the early days) because there wasn't nearly as much money involved, so some tour players took weeks off for exhibitions and guaranteed money; and travel time and cost made it more difficult for fringe guys to play a full tour schedule.

[skydog]

As the No Laying Up guys recently pointed out, if you want to see how much of an impact Tiger has had on the quality of tour players, go back and look at the 2006 US Ryder Cup team. The bottom half of the team is laughable. Compare that to the 2018 squad where Webb Simpson and Rickie are the weakest guys on the team (based on resume). 

1997-2010 IMO saw the ‘normal’ increase in SOF. From 2010-today we have seen a ramp in that rate of increase due to the coming of age of kids who got into the game (or got better) because of Tiger. Brooks and DJ are the most obvious examples IMO but there are countless others. It’s hard to imagine them playing golf, or at least approaching it the way they do, without Tiger paving the way. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by skydog

[Wally Fairway]

30 minutes ago, skydog said:

As the No Laying Up guys recently pointed out, if you want to see how much of an impact Tiger has had on the quality of tour players, go back and look at the 2006 US Ryder Cup team. The bottom half of the team is laughable. Compare that to the 2018 squad where Webb Simpson and Rickie are the weakest guys on the team (based on resume). 

Without looking up the details, I'm going to speculate that the change is more about the selection formula (who gets automatic bids) than it has to do with Tiger.

There is no way that the US team, with 4 rookies who were 42, 60, 64 and 68 in OWGR would have been the team selected in 2018. Players not selected, but with higher rankings included, DLIII, Kenny Perry, Verplank, Couples, Herron.

[iacas]

As much as I tend to agree with some of the NLU takes, they miss badly on the Ryder Cup one as @Wally Fairway points out. 

[brocks]

On 4/21/2019 at 11:11 AM, turtleback said:

Virtually all of the field strength arguments came down to 2 critical factors, IMO, 1) expansion of the universe from which the fields are drawn, and 2) travel technology that makes it possible for anyone 'good enough' to play all of the top events they qualify for.  Nothing in the second category has really changed much from 1997 to now, but this has been a huge factor in the past.  So the question is, in the period of 1997 to now, have we seen an expansion in the top golf universe like the expansions we have seen in the past?

I'm not so sure that the travel change in the last 20 years has been insignificant.  While it's true that there is no comparison between 1965, when Jack and Arnie were the only players to have their own jets, and 1997, when air travel was available to everyone, I would guess that with the huge increase in purses since Tiger turned pro, many more players are able to at least rent private planes.  Flying commercial beats driving or sailing, but flying by charter jet is much, much better if you want to arrive at an event rested and relaxed.

As for the universe of golf talent, it does look like it has stopped growing, at least temporarily.  We all know that there is a talent bomb waiting to go off once China and India start developing top players, and the addition of golf to the Olympics has probably accelerated that process, but it hasn't had much of an effect yet.

I've always said that the popularity of golf, i.e. TV ratings, club memberships, and public course attendance, has nothing to do with the strength of fields.   If there are more weekend duffers, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't even matter if there are more talented golfers, but they're not serious enough about the game to enter tournaments.

So what matters is the number of golfers both talented enough to play well, and serious enough to try to qualify for elite events.  The way I've measured that over the years is by the number of entrants to the US Open.  To enter the US Open, you have to be a scratch golfer (I believe the actual maximum is 1.4), and you have to be serious enough about golf to be willing to pay an entry fee and travel to a qualifying site.  It's not a perfect barometer, especially for foreign talent, but I can't come up with a better one.

The number of entrants to the US Open was 11 in 1895, when it was first held.  It was 322 in 1922, the year before Jones won his first title.  It went over 1000 for the first time in 1928. 

First time over 2000: 1958.

Over 3000: 1968.

Over 4000: 1971.

Over 5000: 1982.

Over 6000: 1990.

Over 7000: 1997.

Over 8000: 2000.

Over 9000: 2005 (Also the first year they had sectional qualifying outside the US - Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger by making one incredible putt after another down the stretch, said he would not have entered if he had had to qualify in America)

It leveled off after that --- the actual number in 2005 was 9048.  It had only grown to 9086 by 2009, and had fallen to 9006 by 2012. 

Then it surged in 2013, to over 9800, peaked at 10,127 in 2014, and then declined again.  It was down to 9049 last year.

 

USGA Receives More Than 9,000 U.S. Open Entries | Golf Channel

---

The USGA received a total of 9,049 entries for the upcoming U.S. Open, with local qualifying set to begin on Monday.

The way the ebbs and flows follow Tiger's ups and downs is pretty striking.  That may mean it is poised for another surge.

But for now, it seems that the talent pool has been fairly stagnant since about 2005.

[skydog]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

As much as I tend to agree with some of the NLU takes, they miss badly on the Ryder Cup one as @Wally Fairway points out. 

It was merely an anecdotal take. Based on the eye test and the RC selection process aside, the composition of the tour today looks drastically different from an athletic talent standpoint than it did 15 years ago. Is the universe of people with access to the game dramatically different? No, but the universe of top tier athletes who decide to pursue golf is (thanks to Tiger).

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by skydog