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

[turtleback]

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.

There may be no reason to assume that the #1 guy out of 5000 is better than the #1 guy out of 500.  But there is a huge amount of reason to think that the #50 guy out of 5000 is better than the #50 guy out of 500.  And yes there is reason beyond the math  - it is how that pool expanded from 500 to 5000.  It isn't as if we are talking about taking a random group of people.  That 5000 is self-selecting for talent.  It isn't as if we had the top 500 and are now adding the next 4500 and calling that the expanded pool.  The #1 guy in 2004 is a guy who never would have even been on tour in Jack's heyday.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

There may be no reason to assume that the #1 guy out of 5000 is better than the #1 guy out of 500.  But there is a huge amount of reason to think that the #50 guy out of 5000 is better than the #50 guy out of 500.  And yes there is reason beyond the math  - it is how that pool expanded from 500 to 5000.  It isn't as if we are talking about taking a random group of people.  That 5000 is self-selecting for talent.  It isn't as if we had the top 500 and are now adding the next 4500 and calling that the expanded pool.  The #1 guy in 2004 is a guy who never would have even been on tour in Jack's heyday.

So let's just, for the sake of argument, say the game hadn't grown at all in the past 50 years - that the exact same number of golfers that played the game in 1962 is the same as today....worldwide. Further, let's neutralize the technology; let's just say both the 1962 & the 2012 players played with the same equipment. Are the top 50 2012 players better than the  top 50 1962 group?

[jamo]

So let's just, for the sake of argument, say the game hadn't grown at all in the past 50 years - that the exact same number of golfers that played the game in 1962 is the same as today....worldwide. Further, let's neutralize the technology; let's just say both the 1962 & the 2012 players played with the same equipment. Are the top 50 2012 players better than the  top 50 1962 group?

Well, you'd have to determine which players would not have found the game. I guess we can eliminate most of Asia and South America, probably Africa as well. There were only a few good Australians, and not a whole lot Eastern Europeans. You're basically asking are the Americans and Western Europeans better today than they were in 1962? Throwing out equipment and, I assume, fitness and course design.

[x129]

The golfers today would be much better than the ones in 1960. They practice more (ever read hogans comments on Bryon) , do more auxilary training (gym, diet, various other recovery), have better coaching (i.e. they can video their swings), better understanding of the game (Jack didn't work on his short game till the late 70s, ), yardage books (Remember when Arnie wanted them banned?) and so on. If you get rid of all that stuff and whatever I forgot,  then yeah the groups would be about the same. And my minivan would be as fast as a porsche 911 if they weighed the same, had the same engine, gearing, tires and aerodynamics.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

So let's just, for the sake of argument, say the game hadn't grown at all in the past 50 years - that the exact same number of golfers that played the game in 1962 is the same as today....worldwide. Further, let's neutralize the technology; let's just say both the 1962 & the 2012 players played with the same equipment. Are the top 50 2012 players better than the  top 50 1962 group?

[inthehole]

Originally Posted by Zwick

This is the same for almost every single sport, players now are better than players 20 or 50 years ago.

For example in (real) football: Maradona is regarded as one of the best players of all time, but if you watch videos of him, you can clearly see that he would have no chance today.

But that is not a fair comparison, because there is much more money and technology in the sports today. Therefore I don't see the point in comparing different eras. The modern best guys are always better than the previous eras' best guys.

who is this Maradona you speak of ... I can find no reference of him having ever played in the NFL.

j/k

I think the top players in any generation could compete given equal equipment.      I think what everyone has said about fitness and technology today just creates better players.    Just think if Ben Hogan had an iphone to film himself ...

[brocks]

who is this Maradona you speak of ... I can find no reference of him having ever played in the NFL.

Didn't she do the halftime show at the last Super Bowl?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

So let's just, for the sake of argument, say the game hadn't grown at all in the past 50 years - that the exact same number of golfers that played the game in 1962 is the same as today....worldwide. Further, let's neutralize the technology; let's just say both the 1962 & the 2012 players played with the same equipment. Are the top 50 2012 players better than the  top 50 1962 group?

In absolute terms the golfers of today would be better.  In relative competitive terms, which is what really counts, IMO, they would be equal.

But consider the implications.  In that world where there was no growth in numbers (and presumably money, as it is money that drives the numbers) Phil, Vijay, and Ernie would be the modern day equivalent of Player, Watson, and Trevino, and would probably have 8-10 majors apiece and Tiger would already have 25 majors and 120 wins.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

In absolute terms the golfers of today would be better.  In relative competitive terms, which is what really counts, IMO, they would be equal.

But consider the implications.  In that world where there was no growth in numbers (and presumably money, as it is money that drives the numbers) Phil, Vijay, and Ernie would be the modern day equivalent of Player, Watson, and Trevino, and would probably have 8-10 majors apiece and Tiger would already have 25 majors and 120 wins.

Understood. I was just trying to make my point on a different angle.

Therefore, it sounds like today's top 50 are better than during Nicklaus' time, for the following reasons:

There's more of them

Advances in fitness

Advances in technology

And further, they're not better because they're somehow more superior beings in some fashion. That was what I was getting at, since it would be an insult to the previous generation's great players.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Understood. I was just trying to make my point on a different angle.

Therefore, it sounds like today's top 50 are better than during Nicklaus' time, for the following reasons:

There's more of them

Advances in fitness

Advances in technology

And further, they're not better because they're somehow more superior beings in some fashion. That was what I was getting at, since it would be an insult to the previous generation's great players.

I completely agree with you there.

[allin]

There are two problems with the population has grown therefore there are more talented golfers now idea. It assumes the percentage of the total population playing golf has remained stable or increased. It also assumes that superior talent and skill mix occurs at a regular rate. Both issues cut both ways. For example, men at least have opportunities in the expansion of leagues and the number of professional sports. Culture plays a large part in sport selection, for example Kenya's ability to dominate Marathon running. Golf is a secondary sport almost everywhere, so the increase in talent level may be over stated. If it is purely about percentages then truly great players like Nicklaus and Woods should appear more often than the apparent 10-15 year span we now see. I am a bit lazy so I cannot say which generation has the higher participation rate. Although it is reasonable to assume there has been some worldwide increase I think given the position of golf as a secondary sport, the role of culture, the unpredictably of talent emerging the statement that the top 50 is much superior now is overstated.

[brocks]

There are two problems with the population has grown therefore there are more talented golfers now idea. It assumes the percentage of the total population playing golf has remained stable or increased. It also assumes that superior talent and skill mix occurs at a regular rate. Both issues cut both ways. For example, men at least have opportunities in the expansion of leagues and the number of professional sports. Culture plays a large part in sport selection, for example Kenya's ability to dominate Marathon running. Golf is a secondary sport almost everywhere, so the increase in talent level may be over stated.

I guess it's possible that a smaller percentage of people took up golf in non-English speaking countries after TV allowed them to see charismatic stars like Arnie and Jack, and I guess it's possible that a smaller percentage of athletes made golf their first sport after seeing Tiger become the richest athlete in history, but that's not the way I would bet. [quote] If it is purely about percentages then truly great players like Nicklaus and Woods should appear more often than the apparent 10-15 year span we now see. .[/quote] Players like Tiger and Jack are anomolies -- you never know when a real golf mutant is going to show up. But as turtleback said, the players just a notch below --- the Palmers, Players, and Trevinos --- are going to look a lot greater than players like Mickelson, Vijay, and Els, because the top 50 of the 60's and 70's were not as strong as the top 50 today. And the top 50 a few decades from now will be even stronger, with probably three or four Chinese golfers in the top ten, and it will be even harder for one player to dominate. So if someone *does* dominate those fields the way Tiger dominated his generation, he'll probably be the greatest ever.

[bigoak]

Would be fun to watch today's top 50 hitting a balata rubber ball with "wooden" woods and steel shafts, true blade irons without peripheral weighting, and a bullseye putter.  especially fun to see em hitting off those old fairways and very slow, bumpy greens of "back in the day"  Head to head, it might be closer than you think.

[allin]

Would be fun to watch today's top 50 hitting a balata rubber ball with "wooden" woods and steel shafts, true blade irons without peripheral weighting, and a bullseye putter.  especially fun to see em hitting off those old fairways and very slow, bumpy greens of "back in the day"  Head to head, it might be closer than you think.

This is the point I keep hammering at. The playing conditions and equipment today favor players with certain strengths. The balata ball, wooden clubs, slower, bumpier greens required a different skill set. Creative shotmaking, wristy putting styles, were responses to the technology and playing conditions of the time. Many of the somewhat robotic power players of today would struggle greatly I believe under those conditions. Some, like Bubba Watson might have done even better. Valid comparisons can only be made if the conditions are consistent. Yes population has grown and the potential pool of players has grown. If you had the top 50 of Jacks era play the top 50 now back to back, with one of the rounds with equipment and conditions for each era I think the current would prevail, but it would be much closer than most would expect. The top 50 is a very small subset in any event and growth in the total pool makes only a small difference. It is kind of like the number of people with a 200 point IQ you have to grow the population a huge amount to increase the number significantly.

[zipazoid]

I remember reading a few years back in Golf Digest or some other mag, where the head pro at Baltusrol, were Jack won the US Open in 1967, tried to replicate Jack's approach shot on 18 in the final round. Jack had 238 uphill & he hit a one-iron to 15 feel. So they gave the head pro a butter-knife MacGregor Tourney one iron & a balata ball. He couldn't even reach the green.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Listening to the guys who were there, I have to say that the top 50 is better now. Craig Stadler said in his Feherty interview last week that in his day there were only about 15-20 guys any week would could win the tournament. Now, almost anyone can.

Ken Venturi once said the same thing about the late 50s and early 60s, that at any tournament, there were only about 8-10 guys you had to beat.

All this means that the Tour is deeper, and that has to mean better, too.

Look at any team sport. A modern championship team in baseball, basketball, football, or hockey has guys that are bigger, stronger, and faster than the guys who played 40 years ago. The best modern team would demolish its 40-year-old counterpart. Why should golf be any different?

[cwebbie]

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.

One thing we can all agree on is that Jack Nicklaus is a 100% class act. Therefore, it'd be hard to picture him saying today's players aren't fit to hold his jock strap. Maybe he was just being gracious.

[k-troop]

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 Tiger says that Jack is the greatest of all time.

[bwdial]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

Listening to the guys who were there, I have to say that the top 50 is better now. Craig Stadler said in his Feherty interview last week that in his day there were only about 15-20 guys any week would could win the tournament. Now, almost anyone can.

And yet in Stadler's prime, over 30 different players would win in a given year, so he's off by roughly 100%.  We can't rely on the memories of players, because they are quite unreliable.

Quote:

Look at any team sport.  A modern championship team in baseball, basketball, football or hockey has guys that are bigger, stronger, and faster than the guys who played 40 years ago.  The best modern team would demolish its 40-year-old counterpart.  Why should golf be any different?

Golf is different for a lot of reasons.  First, it's an individual sport.  Every ounce of competitive pressure is on one player.  Second, the sports you mentioned are are overtly physical.  Size, strength and speed are highly valued because of the nature of the sports.  When golf requires the participants to sprint to the ball, run over an opponent or leap over Rae's Creek, then these traits will become more important.  Lastly, golf is mostly mental.  One look at Charles Barkley's swing will tell you that.  Dude could slam dunk a basketball and run the floor, but he can't swing a golf club to save his life.  The comparisons to other sports simply don't hold water.