Strength and Depth of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm not trying to argue here, I'm simply asking your, and others opinion of something I just thought about when I mentioned the Solheim Cup.

This topic isn't about the Solheim Cup.

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Back in Jack's era, there were very few Europeans playing the PGA Tour. When the 2 teams met in the Ryder Cup the U.S. dominated. I realize the European team later expanded to include more countries, but the Europeans have now dominated for many years.

I don't think that's super accurate.

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Does that mean the top U.S. players were better in Jack's era, and the top Europeans better in Tiger's era?

No. It means there were not that many good foreign players in Jack's day.

Today it's basically A+ or A players playing against each other on both sides. In Jack's day, it was some A/B players on the U.S. side playing against some A/B/C players on the British/Euro side. That became some A/B players when they added more Europeans and See and Jose Maria and some others began playing, toward the end of Jack's time.

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm not sure how many Europeans played over here full time early 90's thru early 2000's, but I don't think there were many.

Because there were not very many good European players.

Colin Montgomerie beat up on weaker (compared to the PGA Tour) fields on the European Tour, and those fields were much, much, much stronger in his era than they were in Jack's day.

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Not sure how this would affect the Tiger/Jack argument, except would it help the "Jack played against more top players " argument? Since those guys dominated in International competition?

No, it hurts that argument.

I'm not sure why you're so confused about this.

More players (regardless of where they come from) = stronger, deeper fields.

C'mon. Imagine it's a goal of yours to win a city championship. Doesn't matter what city, it's your life's goal to win a city championship somewhere. The question is simple: all else equal, do you move to a city with 100,000 golfers, or do you move to a city with 500 golfers?

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

I realize you said it's only your opinion, but I'm surprised (to say the least) at how MUCH better you think Tiger is then Jack, given the numbers you just gave.

Jack beat up on some very weak fields.

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

This topic isn't about the Solheim Cup.

I don't think that's super accurate.

No. It means there were not that many good foreign players in Jack's day.

Today it's basically A+ or A players playing against each other on both sides. In Jack's day, it was some A/B players on the U.S. side playing against some A/B/C players on the British/Euro side. That became some A/B players when they added more Europeans and See and Jose Maria and some others began playing, toward the end of Jack's time.

Because there were not very many good European players.

Colin Montgomerie beat up on weaker (compared to the PGA Tour) fields on the European Tour, and those fields were much, much, much stronger in his era than they were in Jack's day.

No, it hurts that argument.

I'm not sure why you're so confused about this.

C'mon. Imagine it's a goal of yours to win a city championship. Doesn't matter what city, it's your life's goal to win a city championship somewhere. The question is simple: all else equal, do you move to a city with 100,000 golfers, or do you move to a city with 500 golfers?

More players (regardless of where they come from) = stronger, deeper fields.

Jack beat up on some very weak fields.

OK, sorry I brought it up where I did, but when Brocks listed the top LPGA players, I thought Solheim, then Ryder cups. It was off topic though.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

OK, sorry I brought it up where I did, but when Brocks listed the top LPGA players, I thought Solheim, then Ryder cups. It was off topic though.

How @brocks mentioned it was on topic. How you took it was not.

Please answer my question:

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

C'mon. Imagine it's a goal of yours to win a city championship. Doesn't matter what city, it's your life's goal to win a city championship somewhere. The question is simple: all else equal, do you move to a city with 100,000 golfers, or do you move to a city with 500 golfers?

Pretty simple.

[GrandStranded]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

How @brocks mentioned it was on topic. How you took it was not.

Please answer my question:

Pretty simple.

I think that's a very hard point to argue with. An hour ago I wouldn't be able to give you an argument at all to be honest. But after Brock's LPGA list, I' going to throw this out there. Lets say Korea is "small town" and the U.S. is the "big town" or we can say U.S. is the 100,000 , Korea is the 1000. Small town looks pretty good, no? I don't think I'd go small city to win this chamionship

Edited March 21, 2018 by GrandStranded

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I think that's a very hard point to argue with. An hour ago I wouldn't be able to give you an argument at all to be honest. But after Brock's LPGA list, I' going to throw this out there. Lets say Korea is "small town" and the U.S. is the "big town" or we can say U.S. is the 100,000 , Korea is the 1000. Small town looks pretty good, no? I don't think I'd go small city to win this chamionship

Nope, Korea is not the small town.

Korea has a huge number of female golfers. And what's more, they train like crazy.

You're immune to simple logic and basic math.

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Nope, Korea is not the small town.

Why, because you say so? 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

Why, because you say so? 

Nope.

[GrandStranded]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nope.

Funny how you justify back tracking on your argument. You asked me to answer your question. When I gave you an answer that debunked your big town, small city argument, you said it wasn't valid, because Korea has too many female golfers? WOW! Wasn't your whole argument that big city always has more better players then small city?. What's the point even debating you?

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Funny how you justify back tracking on your argument.

I'm not backtracking anything. Did you read what was written? Korea has a ton of female golfers.

18 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

You asked me to answer your question. When I gave you an answer that debunked your big town, small city argument, you said it wasn't valid, because Korea has too many female golfers?

That was the entire f***ing basis of the question.

Would you rather play in a town with 500 golfers or 100,000 golfers? Korea ain't the town with 500 golfers. It's the town with 50,000, and those 50,000 are incredibly well trained.

18 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

What's the point even debating you?

Buddy, you're the one who seemingly can't understand basic math or logic. I haven't changed anything. Korea is smaller in size than the U.S. (most countries are), but it has a TON of female golfers. And what's more, they're exceptionally well trained. The latter eliminates the "all else equal" part.

[Pretzel]

16 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Funny how you justify back tracking on your argument. You asked me to answer your question. When I gave you an answer that debunked your big town, small city argument, you said it wasn't valid, because Korea has too many female golfers? WOW! Wasn't your whole argument that big city always has more better players then small city?. What's the point even debating you?

He didn't say big city and little city specifically in terms of their size.

He said that in terms of the number of golfers they have. Korea has more female golfers than any city in the U.S., by a large margin, which would make it the "big city" if you're playing in a club championship in Seoul vs in a U.S. city like Denver (as a girl, anyways).

An accurate comparison, to use Colorado towns as an example, is whether you would rather play in the Denver City Amateur championship (where there are enough golfers to support 10+ courses) or in the Longmont City Golf Championship (where there are only enough golfers to support 2 full courses and 1 nine hole course)?

Here's a hint: the bigger city (Denver) has winners that usually average 5-10 under par over 2 days, while the Longmont winner usually shoots anywhere from two over to two under most years over 3 days on courses that average the same difficulty (Denver plays twice on a 71.1 rated course, Longmont plays on a 67.6 rated course, then a 73.3, then a 71.5 to average 70.8). That said, one of the courses played by in the Longmont tournament (Ute Creek) strongly favors long hitters and anyone who drives the ball 280+ can play the course much more easily than the 73.3 rating would suggest (since they rate based on 250 yard drives), while the same cannot be said for City Park Golf Course in Denver. 

Even still, you could compare Pyongyang (with its population of 3,255,288 people) to Longmont (with its population of 92,858) and Longmont would still almost definitely be the "big city" in terms of golf because the number of golfers in Pyongyang is probably in only the double or low triple digits. You can't compare by population or physical size, you need to compare by the golfing populations of each location, and I think that might be what tripped you up.

[mvmac]

30 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Why, because you say so? 

It's not small town. In Korea their LPGA players are big stars, I don't think many people that aren't avid golfers know who Lexi Thompson is. Korea helps support the development of their players. Also a good number of parents send their kids to the states to live, train and play golf. 

I know from experience, they take up half the range when I'm trying to practice in the afternoons 

http://blog.18birdies.com/womens-golf-forum/korean-golfers-dominating-lpga/

Quote

This early success is largely the result of Korea’s competitive KLPGA Tour. The group organizes 78 events per year and its tournaments give away over $20 million in prize money annually. While the Symetra Tour serves as the LPGA’s “minor leagues,” the KLPGA employs a three-tier system.

Korea’s Jump Tour caters to pros early in their careers. Then they move on to the Dream Tour and eventually the KLPGA before making the jump to the more lucrative LPGA circuit. By the time players have risen through the KLPGA ranks, they’ve spent years playing busy schedules and facing tough competition.

Recently, Park hosted an LPGA vs. KLPGA event in Korea, and it was clear that not much separates players from the two leagues. Though the LPGA team boasted five top 20 players, they beat the KLPGA team by just two points.

Quote

One factor that contributes to the disparity between South Korean and American players may be the relative lack of sponsorship available in the United States. By sponsoring athletes, Korean companies are taking the financial burden off families, and making it easier for young players to concentrate on golf.

Also this.

Quote

Though Korean stars have certainly had an impact on the LPGA Tour, Americans may not be as far behind as they appear. The United States currently holds both the UL International Crown and the Solheim Cup. Additionally, it was one of only two countries to qualify more than two players for the Olympics (South Korea was the other.)

Recently, Park hosted an LPGA vs. KLPGA event in Korea, and it was clear that not much separates players from the two leagues. Though the LPGA team boasted five top 20 players, they beat the KLPGA team by just two points.

 

[GrandStranded]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm not backtracking anything. Did you read what was written? Korea has a ton of female golfers.

That was the entire f***ing basis of the question.

Would you rather play in a town with 500 golfers or 100,000 golfers? Korea ain't the town with 500 golfers. It's the town with 50,000, and those 50,000 are incredibly well trained.

Buddy, you're the one who seemingly can't understand basic math or logic. I haven't changed anything. Korea is smaller in size than the U.S. (most countries are), but it has a TON of female golfers. And what's more, they're exceptionally well trained. The latter eliminates the "all else equal" part.

That's EXACTLY my point. I told you your small city theory is a good one, but when I was asked by you to answer your question, I gave you an example where it wasn't always correct.  I don't see a reason to reply and continue this. It's your site, and obviously you can do whatever you want, but I'd bet if this conversation isn't deleted, most people would agree with me.

[Pretzel]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

That's EXACTLY my point. I told you your small city theory is a good one, but when I was asked by you to answer your question, I gave you an example where it wasn't always correct.  I don't see a reason to reply and continue this. It's your site, and obviously you can do whatever you want, but I'd bet if this conversation isn't deleted, most people would agree with me.

I didn't include this in my response, but you can't compare countries like that when @iacas said cities. The population of Seoul is 10.29 million people, which makes it larger than any one city in the U.S. by population (our largest is New York City, with 8.538 million people).

I'd also take your bet and say that most would agree with @iacas that they'd prefer to play a city championship in a smaller town than a larger one. I'll wager $20 and make a poll if you're game to test your hypothesis.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Pretzel

[mvmac]

6 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I gave you an example where it wasn't always correct.  

You're wrong with your example, evident by my and @Pretzel's recent posts in this thread.

Korea is not small town when it comes to golf, especially ladies golf. 

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, Pretzel said:

He didn't say big city and little city specifically in terms of their size.

He said that in terms of the number of golfers they have. Korea has more female golfers than any city in the U.S., by a large margin, which would make it the "big city" if you're playing in a club championship in Seoul vs in a U.S. city like Denver (as a girl, anyways).

An accurate comparison, to use Colorado towns as an example, is whether you would rather play in the Denver City Amateur championship (where there are enough golfers to support 10+ courses) or in the Longmont City Golf Championship (where there are only enough golfers to support 2 full courses and 1 nine hole course)?

Here's a hint: the bigger city (Denver) has winners that usually average 5-10 under par over 2 days, while the Longmont winner usually shoots anywhere from two over to two under most years over 3 days on courses that average the same difficulty (Denver plays twice on a 71.1 rated course, Longmont plays on a 67.6 rated course, then a 73.3, then a 71.5 to average 70.8). That said, one of the courses played by in the Longmont tournament (Ute Creek) strongly favors long hitters and anyone who drives the ball 280+ can play the course much more easily than the 73.3 rating would suggest (since they rate based on 250 yard drives), while the same cannot be said for City Park Golf Course in Denver. 

Even still, you could compare Pyongyang (with its population of 3,255,288 people) to Longmont (with its population of 92,858) and Longmont would still almost definitely be the "big city" in terms of golf because the number of golfers in Pyongyang is probably in only the double or low triple digits. You can't compare by population or physical size, you need to compare by the golfing populations of each location, and I think that might be what tripped you up.

Mike, I saw when you discussed this earlier. Actually enjoyed reading the stories of your family (and you) playing tournaments. I get what you're saying, and I agree 100%. But when he pressed me to answer his question, that's the example I gave. the one point I'd disagree with you on is where you said "Korea has more golfers then any city in the U.S," But I said the U.S., which is a country. I was referring to the U.S. (the country) as the big city, and Korea (country) as the small city.

5 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I didn't include this in my response, but you can't compare countries like that when @iacas said cities. The population of Seoul is 10.29 million people, which makes it larger than any one city in the U.S. by population (our largest is New York City, with 8.538 million people).

I'd also take your bet and say that most would agree with @iacas that they'd prefer to play a city championship in a smaller town than a larger one. I'll wager $20 and make a poll if you're game to test your hypothesis.

The U.S. and Korea which I used as my examples, are a big and a small country. Hence my COMPARISON to his big city, little city theory.

[Pretzel]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I was referring to the U.S. (the country) as the big city, and Korea (country) as the small city.

If we're referencing the countries, I'd think I probably would fare MUCH better in the Korea Open (Korea's current national event, part of the Asian Tour) than the U.S. Open. If the U.S. is the big "city" there and Korea is the small "city", I'd rather play in the small city championship still.

My offer is still on the table. $20 on the line if you'd like to test your theory.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Pretzel

[GrandStranded]

22 minutes ago, mvmac said:

You're wrong with your example, evident by my and @Pretzel's recent posts in this thread.

Korea is not small town when it comes to golf, especially ladies golf. 

U.S., big population as opposed to Korea, small population

Edited March 21, 2018 by GrandStranded

[brocks]

54 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I'm not trying to argue here, I'm simply asking your, and others opinion of something I just thought about when I mentioned the Solheim Cup. Back in Jack's era, there were very few Europeans playing the PGA Tour. When the 2 teams met in the Ryder Cup the U.S. dominated. I realize the European team later expanded to include more countries, but the Europeans have now dominated for many years. Does that mean the top U.S. players were better in Jack's era, and the top Europeans better in Tiger's era? I'm not sure how many Europeans played over here full time early 90's thru early 2000's, but I don't think there were many. Not sure how this would affect the Tiger/Jack argument, except would it help the "Jack played against more top players " argument? Since those guys dominated in International competition

Continental European players were allowed to play the Ryder Cup only since 1979.  Before that it was the US against the Brits/Irish, so of course the US had a much deeper team, and won almost all the Cups.  But that doesn't mean they had all the best players.

I often use Peter Alliss as an example.  Today, most people who remember him at all remember him as an announcer with a very cultured British accent, but he was one of the best players in Europe during the 50's and 60's. He was the leading money winner twice, and played in every Ryder Cup from 1953 to 1969 inclusive, except 1955.

In the 1965 Ryder Cup, he was teamed with Christy O'Connor, who also won the European money title twice. Together, they beat Ken Venturi and Don January in the Thursday morning foursomes, and then beat Billy Casper and Gene Littler in the afternoon foursomes. On Friday, they lost to Palmer and Dave Marr in the morning fourball, but won the rematch of the same teams in the afternoon. Then on Saturday, Alliss beat Billy Casper in the morning singles, and Ken Venturi in the afternoon singles. Those two guys happened to be the 1966 and 1964 US Open champs, respectively.

In case you're rusty on your golf history, all of those Americans were major winners, and almost all of them are in the Hall of Fame.  In other words, Alliss was a world class player. Yet he played only two majors on American soil (he was invited to the Masters only five times, and accepted only twice). He never played in the US Open or the PGA.

His partner, O'Connor, the best player in Europe two years in a row, never played ANY majors other than the British Open.

Peter Thomson of course couldn't play in the Ryder Cup, but he got top tens in the British Open 18 out of 21 years (1951-1971), and won five of them,.  He played one Masters, zero US Opens, and zero PGAs during Jack's pro career.

So it wasn't that international players COULDN'T play US majors and PGA events, it was that they DIDN'T play them.

But you know what, it doesn't matter.

I'll accept for the sake of argument that there were no good international players, other than Gary Player, in the 60's.  It's certainly likely there were less, because World War II absolutely decimated a generation of young men in Europe, way more so than in the US (for example, the UK had only a little over a third the population of the US in 1940, but had more war-related deaths).

It doesn't matter how bad they were, because the point is they are good now.  Whether they didn't play in the US because they didn't want to travel, or because they weren't good enough, they are playing today, and they now win about half the majors played.

Since 1950, there have been 40 majors played per decade.  Americans won 31 of them in the 1950's, 31 in the 1960's, and 33 in the 1970's.  In the 1980's, when Seve was in his prime, Americans still won 29 majors.  But in the 1990's, they won only 21.  And in the 2000's, even with Tiger winning 12 by himself, they won a total of 25.

So even if they just suddenly appeared out of thin air, they started showing up in the 1990's, and that made the fields twice as deep, and that made it twice as hard to win a major.

Note that this means you don't have to assume that golf is like every other sport, and that the average player today is much better than the average player of 50 years ago.  You can assume that babies are born with the same golf talent in exactly the same percentages then as now.  But since the talent pool is twice as large, now there are twice as many players with major-winning talent, and twice as many players with multiple major-winning talent.  But there are the same number of majors, so a player who would have won multiple majors 50 years ago might only win one today.