Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

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


Note: This thread is 2439 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)

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 by Dr. Manhattan

Posted

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.

  • Like 1

Players play, tough players win!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)

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 by skydog
  • Like 1

Posted
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.

  • Like 2

Players play, tough players win!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

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. 

  • Like 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
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.

 

GCLogo.png

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.

  • Like 2

Posted (edited)
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 by skydog

Note: This thread is 2439 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Please see this topic for updated information:
    • Please see this topic for updated information:
    • When you've been teaching golf as long as I have, you're going to find that you can teach some things better than you previously had, and you're probably going to find some things that you taught incorrectly. I don't see that as a bad thing — what would be worse is refusing to adapt and grow given new information. I've always said that my goal with my instruction isn't to be right, but it's to get things right. To that end, I'm about five years late in issuing a public proclamation on something… When I first got my GEARS system, I immediately looked at the golf swings of the dozens and dozens of Tour players for which I suddenly had full 3D data. I created a huge spreadsheet showing how their bodies moved, how the club moved, at various points in the swing. I mapped knee and elbow angles, hand speeds, shoulder turns and pelvis turns… etc. I re-considered what I thought I knew about the golf swing as performed by the best players. One of those things dated back to the earliest days: that you extend (I never taught "straighten" and would avoid using that word unless in the context of saying "don't fully straighten") the trail knee/leg in the backswing. I was mislead by 2D photos from less-than-ideal camera angles — the trail leg rotates a bit during the backswing, and so when observing trail knee flex should also use a camera that moves to stay perpendicular to the plane of the ankle/knee/hip joint. We have at least two topics here on this (here and here; both of which I'll be updating after publishing this) where @mvmac and I advise golfers to extend the trail knee. Learning that this was not right is one of the reasons I'm glad to have a 3D system, as most golfers generally preserve the trail knee flex throughout the backswing. Data Here's a video showing an iron and a driver of someone who has won the career slam: Here's what the graph of his right knee flex looks like. The solid lines I've positioned at the top of the backswing (GEARS aligns both swings at impact, the dashed line). Address is to the right, of course, and the graph shows knee flex from the two swings above. The data (17.56° and 23.20°) shows where this player is in both swings (orange being the yellow iron swing, pink the blue driver swing). You can see that this golfer extends his trail knee 2-3°… before bending it even more than that through the late backswing and early downswing. Months ago I created a quick Instagram video showing the trail knee flex in the backswing of several players (see the top for the larger number): Erik J. Barzeski (@iacas) • Instagram reel GEARS shares expert advice on golf swing technique, focusing on the critical backswing phase. Tour winners and major champions reveal the key to a precise and powerful swing, highlighting the importance of... Here are a few more graphs. Two LIV players and major champions: Two PGA Tour winners: Two women's #1 ranked players: Two more PGA Tour winners (one a major champ): Two former #1s, the left one being a woman, the right a man, with a driver: Two more PGA Tour players: You'll notice a trend: they almost all maintain roughly the same flex throughout their backswing and downswing. The Issues with Extending the Trail Knee You can play good golf extending (again, not "straightening") the trail knee. Some Tour players do. But, as with many things, if 95 out of 100 Tour players do it, you're most likely better off doing similarly to what they do. So, what are the issues with extending the trail knee in the backswing? To list a few: Pelvic Depth and Rotation Quality Suffers When the trail knee extends, the trail leg often acts like an axle on the backswing, with the pelvis rotating around the leg and the trail hip joint. This prevents the trail side from gaining depth, as is needed to keep the pelvis center from thrusting toward the ball. Most of the "early extension" (thrust) that I see occurs during the backswing. Encourages Early Extension (Thrust) Patterns When you've thrust and turned around the trail hip joint in the backswing, you often thrust a bit more in the downswing as the direction your pelvis is oriented is forward and "out" (to the right for a righty). Your trail leg can abduct to push you forward, but "forward" when your pelvis is turned like that is in the "thrust" direction. Additionally, the trail knee "breaking" again at the start of the downswing often jumps the trail hip out toward the ball a bit too much or too quickly. While the trail hip does move in that direction, if it's too fast or too much, it can prevent the lead side hip from getting "back" at the right rate, or at a rate commensurate with the trail hip to keep the pelvis center from thrusting. Disrupts the Pressure Shift/Transition When the trail leg extends too much, it often can't "push" forward normally. The forward push begins much earlier than forward motion begins — pushing forward begins as early as about P1.5 to P2 in the swings of most good golfers. It can push forward by abducting, again, but that's a weaker movement that shoves the pelvis forward (toward the target) and turns it more than it generally should (see the next point). Limits Internal Rotation of the Trail Hip Internal rotation of the trail hip is a sort of "limiter" on the backswing. I have seen many golfers on GEARS whose trail knee extends, whose pelvis shifts forward (toward the target), and who turn over 50°, 60°, and rarely but not never, over 70° in the backswing. If you turn 60° in the backswing, it's going to be almost impossible to get "open enough" in the downswing to arrive at a good impact position. Swaying/Lateral Motion Occasionally a golfer who extends the trail knee too much will shift back too far, but more often the issue is that the golfer will shift forward too early in the backswing (sometimes even immediately to begin the backswing), leaving them "stuck forward" to begin the downswing. They'll push forward, stop, and have to restart around P4, disrupting the smooth sequence often seen in the game's best players. Other Bits… Reduces ground reaction force potential, compromises spine inclination and posture, makes transition sequencing harder, increases stress on the trail knee and lower back… In short… It's not athletic. We don't do many athletic things with "straight" or very extended legs (unless it's the end of the action, like a jump or a big push off like a step in a running motion).
    • Day 135 12-25 Wide backswing to wide downswing drill. Recorder and used mirror. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.