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

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh... so an overweight 50 year old old who won eight tournaments in the 'Nicklaus' era schooled a bunch of PGA Tour scrubs?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

And THAT is the point.  It is not measuring absolute skill level or performance level, which is higher now than 40 years ago in EVERY sport.  It is tougher to win now because the pool of aspirants that the top golfers is drawn from is far larger now for a variety of reasons, and areas of advantage that a few golfers had in the past now are shared across the board.  How many international players were on the radar in Jack's day?  Player, Crampton, Jacklin?  In the 50 years from 1946 through 1995 there were 3 US Opens won by international players.  In the last 10 years 6 US Opens were won by international players.  No international player other Gary Player won the Masters until Jack's career was in its twilight.

That does not diminish what Jack did, it elevates what Tiger has been able to do in the face of a higher level of competition.

[turtleback]

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.

What Jack said BEFORE it became apparent that Tiger was going to take a serious run at his record is more credible that what he has said since, when he is protecting his legacy.  And conveniently he wrote an autobiography right before Tiger exploded on to the scene in 1996.

[WUTiger]

We would need some time travel to determine who's best.

Let's say David Feherty put the Top Fifty from 2012 into a time machine, and transported them back to 1986. Today's guys would get one week to learn how to use 1986 gear, and then play against the Top Fifty from 1986. I'm willing to bet the 1986 guys would win out, because they knew how to win using gear from that era - especially if the 2012 group couldn't use lob wedges. (LWs were just starting to emerge in 1986).

A month later, Feherty would put the Top Fifty from 1986 and bring them forward to present day. They would get a week to pick and choose from modern equipment and practice with it. I would guess the current Top Fifty would win out because they have the advantages of the training and coaching, and know how to use the current gear better.

Time Travel Assumptions

• Feherty could keep the 1986 group at their 1986 age after transport, and the 2012 group at their current age after transport. If not, a couple of the 1986 group would be deceased, and some of the 2012 group would be grade schoolers.
• A month off between Fifty Travel jaunts would be enough to rest up. I've seen no scientific studies on how grueling time travel is.
• Hopefully time travel is more reliable than the shrink ray for transporting your golf bag (FedEx ad).
• Both playoffs would occur at a course set up like a shaggy U.S. Open.

[bwdial]

It would be cool if there was some kind of scientific study about the guys in Jack's day playing worse when he was in the field like this one: http://home.business.utah.edu/finmh/Brown_Quitters_Never_Win.pdf

[brocks]

Let's say David Feherty put the Top Fifty from 2012 into a time machine, and transported them back to 1986.

Knowing Feherty, he'd step on a butterfly or something, and we'd all be speaking Chinese.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by bwdial

It would be cool if there was some kind of scientific study about the guys in Jack's day playing worse when he was in the field like this one: http://home.business.utah.edu/finmh/Brown_Quitters_Never_Win.pdf

It would be even cooler if that study had actually been scientific.  Or had been done by someone who understood golf.

[onlybereaved]

Originally Posted by WUTiger

We would need some time travel to determine who's best.

Let's say David Feherty put the Top Fifty from 2012 into a time machine, and transported them back to 1986. Today's guys would get one week to learn how to use 1986 gear, and then play against the Top Fifty from 1986. I'm willing to bet the 1986 guys would win out, because they knew how to win using gear from that era - especially if the 2012 group couldn't use lob wedges. (LWs were just starting to emerge in 1986).

A month later, Feherty would put the Top Fifty from 1986 and bring them forward to present day. They would get a week to pick and choose from modern equipment and practice with it. I would guess the current Top Fifty would win out because they have the advantages of the training and coaching, and know how to use the current gear better.

Time Travel Assumptions

Feherty could keep the 1986 group at their 1986 age after transport, and the 2012 group at their current age after transport. If not, a couple of the 1986 group would be deceased, and some of the 2012 group would be grade schoolers.

A month off between Fifty Travel jaunts would be enough to rest up. I've seen no scientific studies on how grueling time travel is.

Hopefully time travel is more reliable than the shrink ray for transporting your golf bag (FedEx ad).

Both playoffs would occur at a course set up like a shaggy U.S. Open.

This would seriously make an awesome movie, lol.

Anyways, in my opinion:

-Current course difficulty/distance now should be a wash when compared to 80's course difficulty/distance.  We have better gear now, but the courses play longer/tougher.  How should that not equal out?

-Tour players now (on average) are better than they used to be.  Yes, lets say a certain percentage of them would still hold up today assuming they didn't age getting here, and we assume that they had/were used to new gear.  But it should easily be safe to say that golf was less saturated back then, and that it was much easier to be a tour pro then than it is now (like prior posts referencing a percentage of tour-pro's in the field back in the day who were golf pro's at best but not tour-pro material).

Our worst tour-pro's now are better than the worst tour-pro's then = 100% true

Our best pro's now are better than the best tour-pro's then = Too hard to say with too many variables to consider.

[zipazoid]

I think a lot of this whole debate is generational preference. When I was 23, I thought the top players of that era - Nicklaus, Watson, Ballesteros - were soooo much better than the previous generation - Hogan, Snead, Demaret - it was sort of an 'ego trip' argument on my behalf to justify how good 'my guys' were. And it is happening again now that we have a new generation; they're being compared to my generation, and many are concluding oh, it's totally different now; they're so much better.

Well yeah,they are, based on the various points brought up - better equipment, better fitness, swing coaches, etc. So I would concede that those elements have produced better prepared players, but more skilled players than my generation? I'll debate that one. You can't make me believe that Rory McIlroy is more skilled that Seve Ballesteros, for example.

And yeah, I know we're talking about the top 50 and not the top 5. But the same paradigm applies - the Bill Rogers, Roger Maltbies & Ed Sneeds of my generation would still be just as competitive in today's tour given the same access to what the players of today's tour have. Therefore I reject that today's players are inherently more gifted than previous generations. They're just benefactors of advances in the game not available to previous generations.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

And yeah, I know we're talking about the top 50 and not the top 5. But the same paradigm applies - the Bill Rogers, Roger Maltbies & Ed Sneeds of my generation would still be just as competitive in today's tour given the same access to what the players of today's tour have. Therefore I reject that today's players are inherently more gifted than previous generations. They're just benefactors of advances in the game not available to previous generations.

I think the part that you might be missing is that the pool of aspiring players that is being drawn upon to select the elites that become touring pros is far larger now than it was back then.  Not only are far more US players trying to get on tour now (those mini tours did not exist back then to battle harden guys before they ever got on the Big tour) there are hugely more and better international players now.  In the 50 years from the end of WW2 to 1995 the US Open was won by international players 3 times.  In just the last 10 years the US Open has been won by international players 6 times.  In the 50 years from the inception of the Masters until 1986 when Jack won his final major only 3 international players won 6 Masters.  Since then, in the 26 Masters that have been played, 10 international players have won 13, or half, the Masters.

If the pool of aspiring tour players forms a normal distribution then it should be obvious that if the distribution contains 500 players the top 50 are going to be closer to the mean than the top 50 would be if the distribution contains 5000 players.

[x129]

The players of today are much better than the ones from 40 years ago. But yeah a good chunk of those players from 40 years ago would have been much better with the modern advantages. I think an honest assessment would be if 1960 tour players were born 40 years later and coming up into the game today, somewhere around 50% of them would be on the tour and kicking ass. The other half would be nationwide members. You can debate if the exact number is 1/3 or 2/3s but given the population increase and the rise of european golfers (i.e. they finally recovered from WWII) there wouldn't be spots for all the 1960s pga tour guys. Those guys that get replaced with better players results in the deeper fields of today.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I think a lot of this whole debate is generational preference. When I was 23, I thought the top players of that era - Nicklaus, Watson, Ballesteros - were soooo much better than the previous generation - Hogan, Snead, Demaret - it was sort of an 'ego trip' argument on my behalf to justify how good 'my guys' were. And it is happening again now that we have a new generation; they're being compared to my generation, and many are concluding oh, it's totally different now; they're so much better.

Well yeah,they are, based on the various points brought up - better equipment, better fitness, swing coaches, etc. So I would concede that those elements have produced better prepared players, but more skilled players than my generation? I'll debate that one. You can't make me believe that Rory McIlroy is more skilled that Seve Ballesteros, for example.

And yeah, I know we're talking about the top 50 and not the top 5. But the same paradigm applies - the Bill Rogers, Roger Maltbies & Ed Sneeds of my generation would still be just as competitive in today's tour given the same access to what the players of today's tour have. Therefore I reject that today's players are inherently more gifted than previous generations. They're just benefactors of advances in the game not available to previous generations.

[allin]

01 I [quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/59993/top-50-players-in-the-world-better-now-or-better-when-jack-nicklaus-was-at-his-prime/36#post_737148"]I think a lot of this whole debate is generational preference. When I was 23, I thought the top players of that era - Nicklaus, Watson, Ballesteros - were soooo much better than the previous generation - Hogan, Snead, Demaret - it was sort of an 'ego trip' argument on my behalf to justify how good 'my guys' were. And it is happening again now that we have a new generation; they're being compared to my generation, and many are concluding oh, it's totally different now; they're so much better. Well yeah,they are, based on the various points brought up - better equipment, better fitness, swing coaches, etc. So I would concede that those elements have produced better prepared players, but more skilled players than my generation? I'll debate that one. You can't make me believe that Rory McIlroy is more skilled that Seve Ballesteros, for example. And yeah, I know we're talking about the top 50 and not the top 5. But the same paradigm applies - the Bill Rogers, Roger Maltbies & Ed Sneeds of my generation would still be just as competitive in today's tour given the same access to what the players of today's tour have. Therefore I reject that today's players are inherently more gifted than previous generations. They're just benefactors of advances in the game not available to previous generations. [/quote] This is the point I tried to make, I guess poorly. In the end if you took the players of past generations, have them develop under current conditions and they would be great. This whole premise, expressed dogmatically is intellectually arrogant. It is like saying Bill Gates is smarter than Einstein because with modern computers he can do calculations faster. Compare each to their generation given the conditions they performed under. You can make a valid argument that way and still be fair. Certainly Tiger is poised to claim the best golfer ever crown. Certainly the number of very good golfers has increased, mainly do to increases worldwide in the ability to make a living. I feel that the top 50 worldwide is closer than is being stated, and the top 10 may well have been better from 1950 - 1980, especially if you look at the US PGA tour, many posters such as Eric state opinions such as the number of strokes course difficulty has increased compared to equipment changes as fact. Of course I will admit I am fed up with Erics high handed he is God on high posting style.

[Christian Costa]

i think the top 50 are definitely way better now, but it is equally hard to win a major now compared to then

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I think the part that you might be missing is that the pool of aspiring players that is being drawn upon to select the elites that become touring pros is far larger now than it was back then.  Not only are far more US players trying to get on tour now (those mini tours did not exist back then to battle harden guys before they ever got on the Big tour) there are hugely more and better international players now.  In the 50 years from the end of WW2 to 1995 the US Open was won by international players 3 times.  In just the last 10 years the US Open has been won by international players 6 times.  In the 50 years from the inception of the Masters until 1986 when Jack won his final major only 3 international players won 6 Masters.  Since then, in the 26 Masters that have been played, 10 international players have won 13, or half, the Masters.

If the pool of aspiring tour players forms a normal distribution then it should be obvious that if the distribution contains 500 players the top 50 are going to be closer to the mean than the top 50 would be if the distribution contains 5000 players.

Oh, I totally get that. No doubt the 'pool' of players has dramatically increased thru the years, so just by that fact alone you can conclude that there's going to be more good players now. It's simple math. I'm just saying that today's top 50 doesn't necessarily exceed the talent of the top 50 a generation ago. In other words, there's nothing genetically superior to the players of today which would make them superior to the players of previous eras. There's just more of them now due to the game's explosion. both domestically and  globally.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Oh, I totally get that. No doubt the 'pool' of players has dramatically increased thru the years, so just by that fact alone you can conclude that there's going to be more good players now. It's simple math. I'm just saying that today's top 50 doesn't necessarily exceed the talent of the top 50 a generation ago. In other words, there's nothing genetically superior to the players of today which would make them superior to the players of previous eras. There's just more of them now due to the game's explosion. both domestically and  globally.

That makes no sense to me.  You have a pool of 500 and pick out the top 50.  Now you add 4500 more to the pool and NONE of them are better than ANY of that top 50 you picked out?

What are the odds that the basketball teach from a high school of 200 is going to be as good as the team from a high school of 2,000?  Yes, I saw Hoosiers, but it is such a great story precisely because of how incredibly unlikely that was.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

That makes no sense to me.  You have a pool of 500 and pick out the top 50.  Now you add 4500 more to the pool and NONE of them are better than ANY of that top 50 you picked out?

What are the odds that the basketball teach from a high school of 200 is going to be as good as the team from a high school of 2,000?  Yes, I saw Hoosiers, but it is such a great story precisely because of how incredibly unlikely that was.

I think we're in agreement & you're just not seeing it. Yes - a pool of 4500 to fill 50 would make the group of 50 better versus a pool of 500 doing the same. That's why I said in my last post that 'it's just math' - that's what I meant.

But to imply that somehow the top 50 today are better than the top 50 in years gone by aside from this mathematical explanation , I just don't buy. The top 50 may be better cuz there's more players that can fill those spots, but there's nothing intrinsically 'better' about today's players versus previous generations. Talent is talent.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I think we're in agreement & you're just not seeing it. Yes - a pool of 4500 to fill 50 would make the group of 50 better versus a pool of 500 doing the same. That's why I said in my last post that 'it's just math' - that's what I meant.

But to imply that somehow the top 50 today are better than the top 50 in years gone by aside from this mathematical explanation, I just don't buy. The top 50 may be better cuz there's more players that can fill those spots, but there's nothing intrinsically 'better' about today's players versus previous generations. Talent is talent.

But why does there have to be another reason other than math?  I get what you are saying (I think) that basically the things that can be accomplished with the human body are no different now than they were 50 years ago.  Throw out the technology of clubs and balls, then the capabilities of the 50 best golfers in the world are the same now as then.  They're just coming from that bigger pool.

It soulds like you're basically saying that aside from the mathematical explanation that Webb Simpson "won" the US Open by hitting the ball less than everyone else, he wasn't intrinsically better than the rest of the field that week.

[brocks]

Therefore I reject that today's players are inherently more gifted than previous generations.

I don't remember anybody saying that players are [inherently more gifted] today. What we've said is that there are more [inherently gifted] players today, i.e. the number of inherently gifted players, at each lever of "giftedness," is higher, since the player base is much larger and more widespread. And that more of the inherently gifted players are able to reach their full potential via modern training, coaching, etc. All of which makes it much harder to win a tournament today than in the past. All of the above is pretty much beyond dispute. And it implies, but does not prove, that the top golfers of today have to be better than the top golfers of yesteryear, or, alternatively, that golfers of equal ability today have a lot less wins than their peers of yesteryear. The very, very best might well have been at the top in any era. But once you get past the top three or four of a given era, I think that all the evidence indicates that golfers 5 through 50 have been getting steadily better over time.