Top 50 players in the world - better now or better when Jack Nicklaus was at his prime?

[x129]

Take Augusta National

1980 6925 yards

2012 7435 yards

They added 500 yards to the course. In addition they added trees (and lost some), grew the rough longer, and narrowed the fairways in "Tiger Proofing" the course. The PGA wants to see a certain score range and they tweak the courses to get it.

What you want to do is the comparision within the numbers. in 1980 how much better was the average of the top 10 player than the #50 compared to 2011?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwdial

FWIW...

Top 50 Scoring Average - 2012: 70.0726 - so far

Top 50 Scoring Average - 2011: 70.0636 - full season

Top 50 Scoring Average - 1980: 69.8866 - full season

Based on stats from the PGA Tour website.

Interesting, huh?

[allin]

The real problem with these comparisons is that the comparison really should be based on would today's players without the equipment and training advances or would past players with modern equipment and training be competitive. With current nutrition and weight training the Dolphins, who didn't lose talent every year to free agency would be a great team. Look at mens track, for most distances, even with many more countries involved times have come down 1-2 % even with faster surfaces, lighter shoes, air domes, film, physiological research etc. In the absence of any way to make a true like to like comparison I believe each generation exaggerates the amount of improvement substantially.

[sean_miller]

I was reading an interview in Golf Magazine with a player who'd won many tournaments, including a few majors. He suggested that since the beginning of Jack's prime players were becoming more athletic, more focused, and overall better players due to the increased money involved and the improvements in technology wrt equipment and fitness. He stated the fields were deeper than they'd been 20 years earlier (20 years prior to the interview). The player said that maybe there'd certainly be other players with 30+ wins because some of them were so talented. He didn't predict a 70+ win career with 14 majors to boot. The interview was with Tom Watson in 1988.

[brocks]

The real problem with these comparisons is that the comparison really should be based on would today's players without the equipment and training advances or would past players with modern equipment and training be competitive.

But that's sort of the point. It's impossible to compare the innate talent of players of different generations, but you don't have to think about it very long to see that even if the talent level is exactly the same, the fields are going to be less deep when players pretty much depend on their talent and nothing else, to the point that Hogan was sometimes ridiculed for spending so much time on the range, compared with an era where players all get top of the line nutrition, training, coaching, computer analysis, etc. Even if you ignore the larger player base, and assume that there are the same number of players with X amount of potential, the percentage of players who reach 99% of their potential is going to be much higher when they are properly coached and trained, than when they have to dig it out of the dirt by themselves. [quote] Look at mens track, for most distances, even with many more countries involved times have come down 1-2 % even with faster surfaces, lighter shoes, air domes, film, physiological research etc. In the absence of any way to make a true like to like comparison I believe each generation exaggerates the amount of improvement substantially.[/quote] I don't think so. You can't really go by the world records, because the very best of a generation might actually be some kind of anomaly. But when you're talking about the top 50, then the trends are a lot easier to spot. To take your example of track, the "impossible" four-minute mile barrier was first broken the same year Arnie turned pro (1954). This year, a dozen or so guys broke 4 minutes in a single weekend. http://www.flotrack.org/article/10258-TOP-RESULTS-Miles-around-the-nation-are-going-crazy

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by x129

Except of course they are not playing the same courses.

Take Augusta National

1980 6925 yards

2012 7435 yards

They added 500 yards to the course. In addition they added trees (and lost some), grew the rough longer, and narrowed the fairways in "Tiger Proofing" the course. The PGA wants to see a certain score range and they tweak the courses to get it.

They're also not playing the same equipment.  That's an average of 28 yards a hole.  The modern ball alone, hit with a persimmon headed driver would make up that distance.  Factor in the titanium drivers and jacked up iron lofts, and that 500 yards is nothing.  The link below details some tests done with modern and vintage equipment.

http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf-clubs/vintage-vs-technology/

Not only do modern drivers allow players to hit the ball much farther, but far more accurately.  Players of today have the advantages of three decades of technological advancements with both clubs and balls.  Phil Mickelson hits his nine iron 160 yards according to Golf Digest .  His nine iron also would have been a seven iron in 1980.  Likewise, the ball has significantly changed the game.  It flies farther, stops quicker and is just generally much more consistent than its three decade old Balata counterpart.  Have you ever knocked a Pro V-1 out of round?

There's also been a quantum leap forward in nutrition and physical fitness in the past three decades as well.

Players of today work out.

Players today rarely drink or smoke.

Players today have swing coaches and fitness coaches.

Players today have access to sophisticated computer and video equipment for their swing coaches to dissect their swings with before they can drag another ball over.

When their putting goes south, they can go to a putting coach... and if that fails, they can go to a belly/broomstick putter.

And yet... the scoring average is higher.

Also, someone pointed out that Craig Stadler said that there were only 15 guys that were threats to win any given tournament back in the day.  This is completely erroneous.  In 1980, there were 33 different winners, out of 44 events.

Lastly, why would I take the top ten?  The OP asked about the top 50.  I took the stats of the top 50, and they showed a lower scoring average in 1980 than in 2011 or 2012.  If not scoring average, then what would you suggest?

[Mr. Desmond]

I was a kid watching Jack in the 60's and 70's - and I don't recall anyone expecting Jack to win every tournament he entered as we do Tiger. I don't think the depth of the international field is as deep or high quality as it is today. I think the depth of the US field today is deeper - in the 60's and 70's, you had Palmer and Player, but I think both, especially Palmer were fading in the late 60's, although Player had great longevity because of his fitness.

I'll say this - the Tour was full of characters back then - a blend of aging superstars - Snead, Hogan, et al, superstars like Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, and then potential greats like Floyd (known as a playboy), Weiskopf (temper). It was a different era. And then Watson came in the 70's.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I was a kid watching Jack in the 60's and 70's - and I don't recall anyone expecting Jack to win every tournament he entered as we do Tiger.

I was a bit younger in the 70s but it seemed to me like it was always Jack. There was Jack and Lee, Jack and Tom, etc. But I do recall expecting one of them to win pretty much every time.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I was a bit younger in the 70s but it seemed to me like it was always Jack. There was Jack and Lee, Jack and Tom, etc. But I do recall expecting one of them to win pretty much every time.

Memories comes, memories go ... what was the original question?

lol.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bwdial

FWIW...

Top 50 Scoring Average - 2012: 70.0726 - so far

Top 50 Scoring Average - 2011: 70.0636 - full season

Top 50 Scoring Average - 1980: 69.8866 - full season

Based on stats from the PGA Tour website.

Interesting, huh?

Originally Posted by bwdial

And yet... the scoring average is higher.

You can't make that comparison. You keep trying to, but you simply can't. Greens have more break now because they're faster. The holes are cut three paces from the edges instead of near the middle of the green. Fairways are narrower. Rough is longer. Etc.

It's simply not possible to make any reasonable comparison. If the guys from 1982 played today, their scoring average would be higher.

Let me put it this way: if I could take my modern equipment back to the 1913 U.S. Open, none of you would have ever heard of Francis Ouimet and my scoring record might still stand to this day. The point I'm making is that courses have simply been made THAT much more difficult, because the players and equipment has gotten better.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by iacas

You can't make that comparison. You keep trying to, but you simply can't. Greens have more break now because they're faster. The holes are cut three paces from the edges instead of near the middle of the green. Fairways are narrower. Rough is longer. Etc.

It's simply not possible to make any reasonable comparison. If the guys from 1982 played today, their scoring average would be higher.

Let me put it this way: if I could take my modern equipment back to the 1913 U.S. Open, none of you would have ever heard of Francis Ouimet and my scoring record might still stand to this day. The point I'm making is that courses have simply been made THAT much more difficult, because the players and equipment has gotten better.

Players today whine and moan because greens at the British Open don't stimp at 12 or 13.  Of course pins have to be cut closer to the edge of greens, players are hitting nine irons and wedges into greens that they used to hit fives and sixes.

As for your example, does it not stand to reason that top 50 players from a generation ago would gain several clubs distance with today's equipment?  Sure, they'd struggle with the greens at first, but once they had them figured out, they'd be fine.  I'm no tour pro, but I can tell you that I prefer putting on smooth, fast bent grass greens rather than slow Bermuda.  I'm also no long hitter, but I hit my driver further than a lot of tour pros did a generation ago.  Am I more skilled?  Hell no... I just have better equipment.

[x129]

The point is scoring average is a meaningless number across generations. The guys in charge work hard to keep it right around 70. As I said you can use the number (if you think it has value) to determine the depth of the fields. I suggested using the average of the top 10 rather than just #1 to eliminate the outliers.

Originally Posted by bwdial

They're also not playing the same equipment.  That's an average of 28 yards a hole.  The modern ball alone, hit with a persimmon headed driver would make up that distance.  Factor in the titanium drivers and jacked up iron lofts, and that 500 yards is nothing.  The link below details some tests done with modern and vintage equipment.

http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf-clubs/vintage-vs-technology/

Not only do modern drivers allow players to hit the ball much farther, but far more accurately.  Players of today have the advantages of three decades of technological advancements with both clubs and balls.  Phil Mickelson hits his nine iron 160 yards according to Golf Digest.  His nine iron also would have been a seven iron in 1980.  Likewise, the ball has significantly changed the game.  It flies farther, stops quicker and is just generally much more consistent than its three decade old Balata counterpart.  Have you ever knocked a Pro V-1 out of round?

There's also been a quantum leap forward in nutrition and physical fitness in the past three decades as well.

Players of today work out.

Players today rarely drink or smoke.

Players today have swing coaches and fitness coaches.

Players today have access to sophisticated computer and video equipment for their swing coaches to dissect their swings with before they can drag another ball over.

When their putting goes south, they can go to a putting coach... and if that fails, they can go to a belly/broomstick putter.

And yet... the scoring average is higher.

Also, someone pointed out that Craig Stadler said that there were only 15 guys that were threats to win any given tournament back in the day.  This is completely erroneous.  In 1980, there were 33 different winners, out of 44 events.

Lastly, why would I take the top ten?  The OP asked about the top 50.  I took the stats of the top 50, and they showed a lower scoring average in 1980 than in 2011 or 2012.  If not scoring average, then what would you suggest?

[brocks]

Scoring average doesn't indicate much, because it's so easy to manipulate. Event organizers, with some notable exceptions like the USGA, know that the fans want to see birdies and eagles, so they try to make sure that the 65s are out there, regardless of the quality of the field. It's very easy to adjust the width of the fairways, the height of the rough, the placement of the pins, etc. That's why some of the lowest scores are shot at some of the weakest events. Nine years ago, Ben Curtis won the Open with a score of -1, the only guy to break par. Meanwhile, the guys who didn't qualify for the Open played the BC Open the same week. The aforementioned Craig Stadler shot -21 to beat two other guys by a shot. Something like 45 guys finished under par.

[allin]

I [quote name="brocks" url="/t/59993/top-50-players-in-the-world-better-now-or-better-when-jack-nicklaus-was-at-his-prime/18#post_736444"] But that's sort of the point. It's impossible to compare the innate talent of players of different generations, but you don't have to think about it very long to see that even if the talent level is exactly the same, the fields are going to be less deep when players pretty much depend on their talent and nothing else, to the point that Hogan was sometimes ridiculed for spending so much time on the range, compared with an era where players all get top of the line nutrition, training, coaching, computer analysis, etc. Even if you ignore the larger player base, and assume that there are the same number of players with X amount of potential, the percentage of players who reach 99% of their potential is going to be much higher when they are properly coached and trained, than when they have to dig it out of the dirt by themselves. I don't think so. You can't really go by the world records, because the very best of a generation might actually be some kind of anomaly. But when you're talking about the top 50, then the trends are a lot easier to spot. To take your example of track, the "impossible" four-minute mile barrier was first broken the same year Arnie turned pro (1954). This year, a dozen or so guys broke 4 minutes in a single weekend. http://www.flotrack.org/article/10258-TOP-RESULTS-Miles-around-the-nation-are-going-crazy[/quote] You totally missed my point. In 1954 milers were running on a cinder track. I ran on a cinder track in HS. One week after running a 2.03 half in warm calm weather on cinder I ran 1.58.6 on a then new composition track in cold windy weather. The tracks now are even faster. The fact that many more run sub 4 minute miles is easier today because the tracks, shoes, hyperbaric chambers etc make it easier. With all the advances the times should have decreased even more. FWIW my comparison was not really going back to 1954, since the OP started with the Nicklaus era. I believe that the top 50 once technological advances, better course conditions etc are considered the differences are much less than people believe. I believe that each generation is biased in favor of their own. There is no way to really make a valid comparison, but to say world record times is not valid mysifies me. The top 50 are the elite, Nicklaus was an elite player. Now your argument is average players? Average golfers are helped more by technology than elite players. Pros really only benefit from technology advances in long irons, woods, and the ball.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by brocks

There really is no comparison when you talk about the athletes of a few decades ago. The "Perfect Season" Miami Dolphins of 1972 would have been destroyed by the "Worst Ever" 0 for 16 Detroit Lions of 2008.

My favorite example is Johnny Weissmuller, who played Tarzan in several movies made in the 1930's. At the time he was, by far, the greatest swimmer who ever lived. He literally never lost. He had something like 65 world records, and a bunch of Olympic gold medals.

And today, his world record times have been beaten by girls in junior high school.

Sorry, but why does that make me laugh?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by allin

I believe that each generation is biased in favor of their own.

Jack Nicklaus doesn't favor his own generation. He says there are many, many more players capable of winning majors nowadays. He says in his time half the guys were club pros and rabbits and so on. He's said countless times how much more difficult it is to win these days.

[TourSpoon]

Great Scott Marty! In the future those PGA Tour pros all play 600 yard par fives hitting 9 iron off the tee and lob wedges into the green. You should see them, they are like a mutant army playing pitch and putt. And they all drink Fuscia Gatorade. Of course, the 72 Dolphins record still stands so don't worry about that!

[allin]

Jack Nicklaus doesn't favor his own generation. He says there are many, many more players capable of winning majors nowadays. He says in his time half the guys were club pros and rabbits and so on. He's said countless times how much more difficult it is to win these days.

Jack Nicklaus is the voice of a whole generation? I seem to recall you commuting on the poor quality of play on lower levels of the Nike tour and mini tours. The comparison is the top 50, not Monday qualifiers and club pros. Guys like Nicklaus internalize a certain kind of arrogance that refuses to recognize that their competitors are capable of beating them. It is part of the gift that allows them to perform their best under pressure. He also stated balls and clubs today give pros 100 yards on 2 full shots on par 5s and 3 - 4 strokes a round. Do you accept those statements as well.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by allin

Jack Nicklaus is the voice of a whole generation? I seem to recall you commuting on the poor quality of play on lower levels of the Nike tour and mini tours. The comparison is the top 50, not Monday qualifiers and club pros. Guys like Nicklaus internalize a certain kind of arrogance that refuses to recognize that their competitors are capable of beating them. It is part of the gift that allows them to perform their best under pressure. He also stated balls and clubs today give pros 100 yards on 2 full shots on par 5s and 3 - 4 strokes a round. Do you accept those statements as well.

• No, never said he was the voice of a whole generation. Just that he knows a bit about the topic, and what he's said on the topic counters your testament about favoring their own generation.
• The lower levels of the Nike and mini tours? 30 years ago most of those guys would have been top 100 in the world. I'm not sure I get your point on that one. And I doubt you read that properly - even most mini tour guys can kick the snot out of a +2 somewhere. The guys on the PGA Tour are just really, really, really good these days.
• The top 50 30 years ago included some club pros. It's not like the top 50 of 30 years ago were every bit as good as the top 50 today, but then, right at #51 in the rankings, they fell off a cliff and got exponentially worse, while the modern golfers are still pretty good. Numerically, if we give the golfers in the top 50 years ago a rating of up to 100, #1 might be a 95 and #50 might be a 63 while today #1 might be a 94 but #50 is an 82.
• First off, they're not getting 100 extra yards on two shots, and even if they're getting 3-4 shots a round on equipment, the courses are taking them back and then some. Either way, that comment has little to nothing to do with "are the top 50 better now or 30 years ago."

Were the top 50 better in the Bobby Jones era or the Jack Nicklaus era? They were undeniably better in the Nicklaus era. Just as they're better now than either of those two times.