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

[x129]

The physical stuff matters. There is a reason why woman and seniors are not winning on the PGA tour. Now a sport like track is about 90% physical (though all the top guys say it is 90% mental) compared to golf which might be 20% but that 20% still matters.

Charles gets a lot of crap for his swing but at one point it was solid. He developed a mental problem after hitting someone. That type of stuff happens in all sports. Pitchers lose the ability to throw strikes (rick Ankeil), QBs can't stand in the pocket, basketball players can't make free throws, runners just can't seem to run fast any more (see Alan Webb).

Originally Posted by bwdial

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.

[k-troop]

The physical stuff matters. There is a reason why woman and seniors are not winning on the PGA tour. Now a sport like track is about 90% physical (though all the top guys say it is 90% mental) compared to golf which might be 20% but that 20% still matters. Charles gets a lot of crap for his swing but at one point it was solid. He developed a mental problem after hitting someone. That type of stuff happens in all sports. Pitchers lose the ability to throw strikes (rick Ankeil), QBs can't stand in the pocket, basketball players can't make free throws, runners just can't seem to run fast any more (see Alan Webb).

Physical matters, but less in golf. Spencer Levin beats Tiger at golf all the time. I bet you Tiger would beat him in football, basketball, or any length of footrace 100 out of 100 times.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by x129

The physical stuff matters. There is a reason why woman and seniors are not winning on the PGA tour. Now a sport like track is about 90% physical (though all the top guys say it is 90% mental) compared to golf which might be 20% but that 20% still matters.

Charles gets a lot of crap for his swing but at one point it was solid. He developed a mental problem after hitting someone. That type of stuff happens in all sports. Pitchers lose the ability to throw strikes (rick Ankeil), QBs can't stand in the pocket, basketball players can't make free throws, runners just can't seem to run fast any more (see Alan Webb).

Yeah... what was I thinking?  The PGA Tour is being dominated by 6' 5" bruisers that weigh 230 pounds and bench press 500 now, right?  If it were, your strawman comparison to other sports would be valid, but it's not.  The average height of this year's winners on tour is a shade over six feet tall and 181 pounds.  Byron Nelson was 6' 1" tall.  Sam Snead was 5' 11" and weighed 185 pounds.  Hardly the great leap in physicality that other sports have seen, huh?  Of course, if Carl Petterson's actual weight was listed on the PGA Tour website - dude is not 195 pounds - the average weight would have been a little higher, but Carl Petterson doesn't exactly help you make your case.

Again, golf is mainly a mental game.  Guys generally don't lose their physical ability.  They lose their nerve.  If you want to make comparisons to other sports, you'd be better served comparing it to the cerebral components.  Football?  Try field goal percentage.  Basketball?  Try free throw percentage.  The primary goal in football is to control the line of scrimmage, and that's why the athletes have gotten larger and quicker.  The primary goal in golf is to get the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.  While it's true that the golfers of today are - for the most part - are in better shape than their predecessors, they aren't necessarily that much better at getting the ball into the hole.  You can argue that scoring averages don't matter, but if the courses were set up to yield a 70, and one group of golfers shoot below 70, and the other shoots over 70, the former group is better.

Sure, the courses are tricked up now, but they have to be.  Not because of some new physical ability, but because of technology.  That site that I posted showed how titanium drivers increased distance 13% over persimmon, but that's not really accurate because they used Pro V1s for the entire test.  If they had paired the persimmon driver with the balata ball, the increase would have been even more dramatic.  But the really dramatic number was the nearly 23% increase in accuracy that titanium brought over persimmon.  Regardless of what you may think, golf in the '50s, '60s and '70s was a hell of a lot more difficult to play.  Yes, the number of golfers has increased, but I doubt a lot of the Briny Bairds, Steve Marinos and Brett Quigleys would have managed to make a living on tour in the '60s.

As for the reason you don't see women winning on the PGA Tour, physicality definitely plays a part.  But then, so does putting... or more precisely... poor putting.  IIRC, Erik has pointed out on more than one occasion that putting and short game is where the players on the LPGA really suffer.  They hit fairways and greens, but they aren't very good putters... and when they miss the green, it generally means bogey.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by 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.

A club pro versus Jack Nicklaus? Not the most compelling argument.

Originally Posted by cwebbie

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.

Maybe he was being truthful.

Originally Posted by k-troop

And Tiger says that Jack is the greatest of all time.

This has precisely what to do with this conversation?

---

The top 50 are better today. We all agree? Okay, cool.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwebbie

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.

Hmmm.  Maybe on the course.  But Jack has gotten himself in trouble with his mouth on more than one occasion.  Try reading his 1996 autobiography and you'll  see.  And, of course, his worst faux pas was when he said something that most people would consider outright racist:

Quote:

Unfortunately, he [Nickalus] also displays a racist attitude shared by many white liberals in this country. This attitude can be called the "Jack Nicklaus syndrome" because Nicklaus illustrated it so clearly in July 1994. He said that the reason there are not more African-American golfers playing at the highest level in the sport is because blacks have "different muscles that react in different ways."

Nicklaus clearly wants everything to be fair, decent, and honest in our society, but he also harbors a racist attitude that is poorly understood and often unrecognized by much of white society--in particular, white liberals. It masks the fact that African-Americans are faced with a lack of equal opportunity that is caused in part by precisely those members of society who want to do the most to promote integration. Although discrimination is not the intention of Nicklaus and others like him, their attitude, which is blind to the less blatant forms of racism, promotes further polarization of the races.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v56/ai_18501026/

Maybe it is  just me but that doesn't seem all that classy.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

A club pro versus Jack Nicklaus? Not the most compelling argument.

I should have provided a few more details. The head pro was given multiple attempts, like 25 or so, to try to replicate the shot, heck to just get a ball to the green. He couldn't do it - he could not get a 1960s-era one iron & balata ball  to the green from 238 uphill.

The point isn't 'club pro versus Jack' - it's to demonstrate the changes in technology & what Jack had to deal with in the 1960s.

[allin]

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.

Comments by Ernie Els that equipment now allowed guys to win now that couldn't have 20 years ago because of the equipment. http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/els-says-technology-the-reason-guys-winning-today/

[brocks]

Comments by Ernie Els that equipment now allowed guys to win now that couldn't have 20 years ago because of the equipment. http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/els-says-technology-the-reason-guys-winning-today/

He's saying the same thing Jack said in his book, and the same thing that several people here have been trying to tell you --- that modern equipment acts as an equalizer, therefore it's harder for the best players to win, therefore you should not expect to see the best players today compile the kind of stats the best players had in the 60's, therefore Tiger's dominance is even more impressive.

[Zwick]

How can the PGA Tour have been so cruel and give that inferior equipement only to Jack, doesn't seem fair at all. Imagine how much he could have won with regular stuff.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I should have provided a few more details. The head pro was given multiple attempts, like 25 or so, to try to replicate the shot, heck to just get a ball to the green. He couldn't do it - he could not get a 1960s-era one iron & balata ball  to the green from 238 uphill.

The point isn't 'club pro versus Jack' - it's to demonstrate the changes in technology & what Jack had to deal with in the 1960s.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Zwick

How can the PGA Tour have been so cruel and give that inferior equipement only to Jack, doesn't seem fair at all. Imagine how much he could have won with regular stuff.

Ha ha.

I will assume you're being sarcastic.

If you're not, then you obviously don't understand what I saying & likely never will, so I will dispense in trying to explain it.

[woconnorj]

I am going to have to disagree with most everyone to some extent.

While i dont think the top 50 golfers back in jack's day are better than the top 50 today and there however i think that the top 10 players back then at a given time are better than the top ten today without a doubt. Excluding tiger the top ten guys in the world today have a combined 3 major victories that is a joke. The reason i think the top ten guys were better during Jack's era is because the 50-100th ranked guys couldn't afford to just play golf for a living. Now if your 100th on the moneylist you are a multi- millionarie after sponsors. This has two effects. The first is since you dont have to be one of the best players to make a ton of money people golfers don't have the passion they did back then and they are content with just playing for a living. There has been a different major champion the last 17 as many of you know. Did you know that is the longest streak in the history of golf. The second streak came after jacks era and went until tiger's second major which was 16. Now i know many of you will say thats because Jack dominated. That is only partially true Jack went over 20 majors without winning. Back in his day guys like watson, trevino, ballsteros, palmer, player, stockton, casper,zoeller competed and won many majors. There have been 3 guys who won more than one major between tigers first and last and 11 guys who won majors most more than two between jacks first and last. While the 50th guy might not of been as good Id take the top ten back then over the top ten today in a heart beat!

[x129]

This was discussed in depth earlier. I think a lot of us question that assessment. Why do you think the top 10 back then was better? Because they had more majors. That is pretty much a fact. The questionable part is why they had more majors. You are postulating that they were better golfers than the current top 10.  I say it is because the competition back then was less deep.

You also have to be careful in selecting your sample. You listed off a bunch of great golfers but they were not all on top at the same time. For example Tigers list would have guys like  Faldo, Phil, VJ, Els,  Stewart, Harrington to name the multiwinners I can think off the top of my list. And guys like Rory, Bubba, Keegan, and a bunch more are young enough that one or two of them might end up with 3 or 4 majors.

Originally Posted by woconnorj

While i dont think the top 50 golfers back in jack's day are better than the top 50 today and there however i think that the top 10 players back then at a given time are better than the top ten today without a doubt.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by woconnorj

I am going to have to disagree with most everyone to some extent.

While i dont think the top 50 golfers back in jack's day are better than the top 50 today and there however i think that the top 10 players back then at a given time are better than the top ten today without a doubt. Excluding tiger the top ten guys in the world today have a combined 3 major victories that is a joke. The reason i think the top ten guys were better during Jack's era is because the 50-100th ranked guys couldn't afford to just play golf for a living. Now if your 100th on the moneylist you are a multi- millionarie after sponsors. This has two effects. The first is since you dont have to be one of the best players to make a ton of money people golfers don't have the passion they did back then and they are content with just playing for a living. There has been a different major champion the last 17 as many of you know. Did you know that is the longest streak in the history of golf. The second streak came after jacks era and went until tiger's second major which was 16. Now i know many of you will say thats because Jack dominated. That is only partially true Jack went over 20 majors without winning. Back in his day guys like watson, trevino, ballsteros, palmer, player, stockton, casper,zoeller competed and won many majors. There have been 3 guys who won more than one major between tigers first and last and 11 guys who won majors most more than two between jacks first and last. While the 50th guy might not of been as good Id take the top ten back then over the top ten today in a heart beat!

You kind of miss the point.  The reason you think the top 10 were better in Jack's day is that they have more majors than the top 10 have now (plus you are doing some time telescoping).  But the reason they have more majors is that the top 50 weren't anywhere near as relatively good back then (and we have Jack Nicklaus as the chief witness of this in his 1996 autobiography).  If 5-10 guys are sharing most of the majors then of course they are going to have more majors each than now, when there are 25 to 50 guys in the serious running for sharing almost all of the majors.

In addition, Jack also made the point that the improvements in the equipment make it harder for the best golfers to distance themselves from the lesser golfers, which again means that more players have a realistic shot at winning a major.  And makes it harder for the Tigers, Phils, Ernies, Vijays, and Padraigs to distance themselves from the lesser players and pile up more majors.

As far as current players just cruising, it isn't that easy to stay in that top level group that makes a lot of money - there is way more competition for the tournament spots, even with the top 125 exempt as compared to only the top 60 being exempt in Jack's day.  There is more junior golf - not just country club kids any more.  There are way more quality college programs.  There are way more foreign players.  There are way more opportunities in the web.com tour the Eurotour, the mini-tours, etc. for players to get battle hardened.  There is no field in which an infusion of large amounts of money does not result in more and better competition to get that money.  And I guarantee you that if you read books about the tour in Jack's day (try Pro: Frank Beard on the Pro tour - it is a diary style book covering the year Frank Beard was the PGA tour leading money winner) you will come to the inescapable conclusion that the players nowadays work way harder than the players did in Jack's day.  Hardly anyone other than Gary Player paid any attention to conditioning.  They didn't put in the kind of time modern players do on the practice tee.  Jack himself said he didn't work much on his short game because he didn't need to in order to beat the guys he had to beat (yet his inability to get out of sand cost him the US Open playoff with Lee Trevino at Merion).

In light of these factors, Jack said that to keep their card the modern day middle level pro player has to be as good as the top players were in his day and the modern day top players have to be as good as the superstars were in his day.  AND he said that because of these factors the day of the superstar in golf was over.  Right before Tiger burst onto the scene.

http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Frank-Beard-Golf-Tour/dp/B000DCNJ4O/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie;=UTF8&qid;=1342683570&sr;=1-1&keywords;=frank+beard

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Nicklaus-My-Story/dp/1416542248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie;=UTF8&qid;=1342683632&sr;=1-1&keywords;=jack+nicklaus+my+story

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by turtleback

You kind of miss the point.

That seems to be your favorite argument.

Maybe some of us just think that trophies in the case are a more concrete indicator of "how good" a certain golfer was than say, speculation about comparative ability levels of people who have never played against each other in their primes.

But if you disagree, then you must be missing the point.

[brocks]

That seems to be your favorite argument. Maybe some of us just think that trophies in the case are a more concrete indicator of "how good" a certain golfer was than say, speculation about comparative ability levels of people who have never played against each other in their primes. But if you disagree, then you must be missing the point.

You missed tb's point. You can understand every nuance of someone's argument, and still disagree with him. But the guy tb responded to was posting as if the posts before his, and the 3,000+ posts in a closely related thread which is also on the first page of "Tour Talk" topics, didn't exist. I can't blame a guy for not reading a couple hundred pages of posts, but he only had to glance at the topics to see that they are there, so it's kind of arrogant for him to post as if he's the first guy to notice that Arnie won more majors than Vijay.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Maybe some of us just think that trophies in the case are a more concrete indicator of "how good" a certain golfer was than say, speculation about comparative ability levels of people who have never played against each other in their primes.

The problem with that tactic is that trophies are earned playing against the available peers. If the available peers get a lot better, you can be a better golfer and not win as many trophies.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

The problem with that tactic is that trophies are earned playing against the available peers. If the available peers get a lot better, you can be a better golfer and not win as many trophies.

Agreed, but your statement "if the available peers get a lot better" is speculation.  (Actually it's a question, but the answer that your question suggests is speculation.)  Trophy counts aren't.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Agreed, but your statement "if the available peers get a lot better" is speculation.  (Actually it's a question, but the answer that your question suggests is speculation.)  Trophy counts aren't.

There's a big difference between speculation and an informed opinion.

Using trophy counts, here you go: a wider variety of players have majors in the past ten years than the years when Jack was winning a lot. By your logic, that shows that more players are better because more players have major championship trophies.

BOOM!