Pretty cool golf visualization

[rexbanner]

I was reading the news this am and saw this:

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/golf-major-money/

[geauxforbroke]

That's pretty interesting. Just shows you that guys in the 20's through the 50's or so really had to play in a lot of tournaments and do well just to scratch out a living. Not like now where a guy can win once or twice in a career and finish 50th on the money list a few years and be pretty set.

[460CompMark]

everyone on tour now can thank Tiger for the big purses

[TJBam]

Very neat deal they've put together.  Interesting to see how the purses and inflation have changed the career earning picture.

[geauxforbroke]

Yeah, purses have exploded over the past 15 years. I'd be curious to see a graph of winner's share of major purses from 1900 to the present, adjusted for inflation. I don't have the time to put that together though.

[butt3r3dt0ast]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Yeah, purses have exploded over the past 15 years. I'd be curious to see a graph of winner's share of major purses from 1900 to the present, adjusted for inflation. I don't have the time to put that together though.

That would be really cool to see.

[Shorty]

There are many players most have never heard of on tour whose winnings surpass the combined total of Nicklaus, Palmer and Player.

And Tim Clark -  who I used to really like, with winnings of over 20 million, + multiples of that in endorsements craps on about his need to putt with a  long putter and how his "livelihood" is at stake.

[TJBam]

Originally Posted by Shorty

There are many players most have never heard of on tour whose winnings surpass the combined total of Nicklaus, Palmer and Player.

But very few who have the "branding" ability to design and stamp their names on hundreds of courses throughout the world.  Even their names.  Courses and streets in my hometown are named after those three.  There's certainly a give and take.  The players you mentioned have the NAME, and didn't exactly receive cash in hand. As a result they have more of a legacy at the expense of proportionately lower purses.

As for me, I'd take being a no-name who got paid in cold hard cash and didn't have a glorious reputation like Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player.

[Jeremie Boop]

There is a bit of difference it the value of money between the ones in the earlier days and more recent times. Not enough to be linear, but 2000 in the 20's was a whole lot more than it is now.

[TJBam]

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

There is a bit of difference it the value of money between the ones in the earlier days and more recent times. Not enough to be linear, but 2000 in the 20's was a whole lot more than it is now.

Of course.  Nicklaus' 18 wins garnered him roughly $650,000.  The most basic approach is his average year for his wins right in the middle is about 1972.  $650,000 in '72 is roughly $3.7 million in 2013.  And that's for 18 major wins.  Maybe round it up to around $4 million because of the Masters in '86.  Just a rough idea of what we're looking at.  Wish I had the time to look up payout for each event and convert it using an inflation calculator.  Hmm..

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by TJBam

As for me, I'd take being a no-name who got paid in cold hard cash and didn't have a glorious reputation like Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player.

Who wouldn't?

I'm talking about the pointlessness of all time money lists.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

There is a bit of difference it the value of money between the ones in the earlier days and more recent times. Not enough to be linear, but 2000 in the 20's was a whole lot more than it is now.

FWIW, $2,000 in 1920 had the same purchasing power as $23,350 today. A decent amount of money, but certainly not a huge amount of money for a year.