The talented in golf on a steady rise

[TN94z]

There is no doubt that it takes an especially talented player to make it to the tour, let alone keep your status on the tour.  This has never been more true than it is today.  The players are getting younger.  The older players are getting themselves in better shape.  The level of the game has been pushed upward and anyone out there has a chance at victory on any given day.  I have seen the same thing happen in mixed martial arts.  The talent has increased exponentially and if you aren't evolving you are being left behind. Bob Verdi says:

Quote:

The PGA TOUR is the toughest league to crack and to stay there is another dimension entirely. With twentysomethings abounding, and so many men twice their age conditioned to play as well or better than they ever have, competitive balance is without a parallel in professional sports. Men's tennis is must-see compelling, but three giants are doing most of the compiling. Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have won 14 of the last 15 Grand Slam events, and 28 of the last 29. They do not have to outlast fields of 156 each week.

I can't imagine what that the next few years will bring.  Just when you think you've seen the best, it gets better and better.

How do you think the talent level compares to other sports?

[Infamous 273]

Originally Posted by TN94z

There is no doubt that it takes an especially talented player to make it to the tour, let alone keep your status on the tour.  This has never been more true than it is today.  The players are getting younger.  The older players are getting themselves in better shape.  The level of the game has been pushed upward and anyone out there has a chance at victory on any given day.  I have seen the same thing happen in mixed martial arts.  The talent has increased exponentially and if you aren't evolving you are being left behind. Bob Verdi says:

I can't imagine what that the next few years will bring.  Just when you think you've seen the best, it gets better and better.

How do you think the talent level compares to other sports?

there can be a good argument made that over the last 20 years, the major 4 sports organizations in north america have seen their talent level watered down due to heavy expansion.

individual sports are always the most elite when it comes to talent level because the criteria to enter into, and maintain is unwavering.  as populations increase, and more and more kids pick up golf, the pga tour isn't going to suddenly make the cut at 250 to get playing status; instead, the competition to be in the top 150 will become that much more fierce.

same can be said for mma - the ufc isn't going to make 2 or 3 champions per weight class.

[brocks]

[URL=http://www.pgatour.com/2012/r/07/03/verdicolumn-parity/index.html]Bob Verdi[/URL] says: "Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have won 14 of the last 15 Grand Slam events, and 28 of the last 29. They do not have to outlast fields of 156 each week."

I don't follow tennis at all, but that seems pretty dismissive. I just googled it, and the men's singles in Wimbledon has 128 guys in the bracket, which means that winning it would be like winning the Accenture Match Play with twice as many players in the field. And if Tiger's record is any indication, it's a lot harder to win the Match Play than a stroke play WGC, even though the stroke play has more players in the field. Plus, unlike golf, tennis players can directly influence the shots that their opponents have to hit, so a guy like Federer can't say what all the golfers say, i.e. "I'm just going to concentrate on my own game, and not worry about what anyone else is doing." So looking at it on paper, it seems like it should be harder to dominate in tennis than it is in golf. You don't see the same one or two golfers winning the match play year after year. And yet, tennis seems to have a much less even distribution of results than golf --- you DO see the same one or two players winning the major titles year after year, and the top tennis players seem to almost always finish in the top ten, while only the greatest of the great golfers finish in the top ten even half the time. Obviously I'm missing something about why tennis champs can be so dominant. Can any tennis fans explain what it is?

[Kapanda]

In terms of individual sports, I can't think at the top of my head of another sport that has a bigger talent pool.

In terms of sports altogether, team sports have been up there for a long time, and I would say that a lot of them - football, soccer, rugby - have much bigger talent pools than golf.

But that's saying nothing about the golf pros. Probably the most competitive individual sport out there, and I think the guy's tennis comparison is apt.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by brocks

I don't follow tennis at all, but that seems pretty dismissive. I just googled it, and the men's singles in Wimbledon has 128 guys in the bracket, which means that winning it would be like winning the Accenture Match Play with twice as many players in the field.

And if Tiger's record is any indication, it's a lot harder to win the Match Play than a stroke play WGC, even though the stroke play has more players in the field. Plus, unlike golf, tennis players can directly influence the shots that their opponents have to hit, so a guy like Federer can't say what all the golfers say, i.e. "I'm just going to concentrate on my own game, and not worry about what anyone else is doing."

So looking at it on paper, it seems like it should be harder to dominate in tennis than it is in golf. You don't see the same one or two golfers winning the match play year after year. And yet, tennis seems to have a much less even distribution of results than golf --- you DO see the same one or two players winning the major titles year after year, and the top tennis players seem to almost always finish in the top ten, while only the greatest of the great golfers finish in the top ten even half the time.

Obviously I'm missing something about why tennis champs can be so dominant. Can any tennis fans explain what it is?

I think that was exactly the point that the author was making: it's impossible to dominate golf like you dominate in tennis. He says that it is because there is just too much good talent in golf, but you make a good point: you don't go head to head in golf like you do in tennis.

[TN94z]

Originally Posted by Infamous 273

same can be said for mma - the ufc isn't going to make 2 or 3 champions per weight class.

Are you sure, what about those Interim titles that everyone just LOVES?

[newtogolf]

In match play you do, it's just that most tournaments don't use that format here.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

I think that was exactly the point that the author was making: it's impossible to dominate golf like you dominate in tennis. He says that it is because there is just too much good talent in golf, but you make a good point: you don't go head to head in golf like you do in tennis.

[nevets88]

I would argue in tennis that it is the big four - Fed, Joker, Nadal and Murray.

What I wonder is if the average amateur player is getting better.

[Infamous 273]

Originally Posted by TN94z

Are you sure, what about those Interim titles that everyone just LOVES?

haha, i can't stand interim belts.  it does help to keep the division relevant, and sell ppvs when the champ is on the shelf, tough.

[dak4n6]

It's the head to head competition and format of the scoring. In tennis, a #2 will beat a #15 head to head 9 out of 10 times.

In stroke play golf, the #2 has to beat not only that #15, but every one else in the field.

[TN94z]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

In match play you do, it's just that most tournaments don't use that format here.

Even in head to head it's different.  The only thing you can do to affect your opponent's shot in match play golf is to stick one close and put the pressure on, or hit that tight fairway, or hard to reach geen, etc....It doesn't "really" affect your opponent's shot.

In tennis, everything you do has an affect on your opponent's shot, so I can definitely see the difference there.

[TN94z]

Originally Posted by Infamous 273

haha, i can't stand interim belts.  it does help to keep the division relevant, and sell ppvs when the champ is on the shelf, tough.

Me either.  I like the proposal that if the champ is going to be out for a certain amount of time, he must relinquish the belt and be awarded an immediate rematch when he returns.  That way the belt isn't on hold and there are no interim belts which mean nothing anyway....but this is a bit off topic..sorry

[Zwick]

That is exactly why tennis is easier to dominate than golf. You just have to focus on one opponent and can directly influence his game. In golf you can't do much in match play other than play good. In tennis, the best players rarely lose against anyone other then the other top players because they are just a fraction better. This fraction is enough to win a few points more than the opponent. If you are just a fraction better in golf, you can't influence the lie or line (or whatever) of your opponent, you just have to hope, that he doesn't play better. (It is hard to compare and I really can't explain it in english...)

Originally Posted by brocks

Plus, unlike golf, tennis players can directly influence the shots that their opponents have to hit, so a guy like Federer can't say what all the golfers say, i.e. "I'm just going to concentrate on my own game, and not worry about what anyone else is doing."

And tennis always had a few dominating players at the top who won the majority of the tournaments. It would be the same in golf if for example in 1999-2001 there would have been a second Tiger Woods. They would've won almost everything.

[allin]

I don't put a lot of stock in these kind of comparisons because in golf the course is the real opponent and it's different every week. If tennis had a larger number of surfaces, court dimensions and net height varied weekly then domination would be a lot tougher. If the course played every week varied as little as tennis courts then the winner would come from a very small pool. Their are a number of tennis players who contend only on clay or only on grass, just as certain golfers always do well at specific courses.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by brocks

I don't follow tennis at all, but that seems pretty dismissive. I just googled it, and the men's singles in Wimbledon has 128 guys in the bracket, which means that winning it would be like winning the Accenture Match Play with twice as many players in the field.

And if Tiger's record is any indication, it's a lot harder to win the Match Play than a stroke play WGC, even though the stroke play has more players in the field. Plus, unlike golf, tennis players can directly influence the shots that their opponents have to hit, so a guy like Federer can't say what all the golfers say, i.e. "I'm just going to concentrate on my own game, and not worry about what anyone else is doing."

So looking at it on paper, it seems like it should be harder to dominate in tennis than it is in golf. You don't see the same one or two golfers winning the match play year after year. And yet, tennis seems to have a much less even distribution of results than golf --- you DO see the same one or two players winning the major titles year after year, and the top tennis players seem to almost always finish in the top ten, while only the greatest of the great golfers finish in the top ten even half the time.

Obviously I'm missing something about why tennis champs can be so dominant. Can any tennis fans explain what it is?

The difference is that in tennis the better player wins a match at a far higher percentage than the better player wins in match play.  Golf, even match play, is far less interactive between the opponents than is tennis.  There might be indirect effects on your game when playing, say, Tiger, but when someone plays Nadal the very way he hits the ball has a huge effect on how you are able to play.  Is there any course in the world on which Tiger would be 50+ wins and one loss against a variety of world class players, as Nadal's record is at the French Open?   If a guy has a weakish backhand a player like Nadal will destroy the guy by going to that backhand.  If a guy is a lousy chipper there is not one thing Tiger can do to make the guy face more chips.  It is just the intrinsic difference between a game which involves both offense and defense and one that only involves offense.

[mck]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

In terms of individual sports, I can't think at the top of my head of another sport that has a bigger talent pool.

In terms of sports altogether, team sports have been up there for a long time, and I would say that a lot of them - football, soccer, rugby - have much bigger talent pools than golf.

I think the physical requirements make team sports like football and basketball have smaller talent pools.  A seven-footer is competing against other seven-footers for that center position--the height requirement alone eliminates 99% of the population.  Same with offensive and defensive lines in football where first priority is size and strengh.

[newtogolf]

I agree you're not playing head to head where you can physically affect your opponents performance but there is a lot of psychology used in match play that could affect their performance.  Such as conceding putts and not letting your opponent putt out to build confidence that comes from seeing their putts go in.  Attacking the course to place pressure, having the ability to change your play based on their well hit or poorly hit shots.

I've played match play a few times and to me I felt a different pressure competing against an individual rather than just trying to shoot my lowest score even though we were playing against the course.

Originally Posted by TN94z

Even in head to head it's different.  The only thing you can do to affect your opponent's shot in match play golf is to stick one close and put the pressure on, or hit that tight fairway, or hard to reach geen, etc....It doesn't "really" affect your opponent's shot.

In tennis, everything you do has an affect on your opponent's shot, so I can definitely see the difference there.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by mck

I think the physical requirements make team sports like football and basketball have smaller talent pools.  A seven-footer is competing against other seven-footers for that center position--the height requirement alone eliminates 99% of the population.  Same with offensive and defensive lines in football where first priority is size and strengh.

Among the general population, yes. But it sounds to me like we're talking about the level of talent at the pro level.