allin

[quote name="RonTheSavage" url="/t/60022/the-talented-in-golf-on-a-steady-rise/18#post_737181"]I would agree with this. Dustin Johnson can dunk a basketball, who says white men cant jump?? [/quote] [quote name="x129" url="/t/60022/the-talented-in-golf-on-a-steady-rise/18#post_737202"]Jack could supposedly dunk also. But if your 6'4 and you can't dunk there is something wrong with you. If DJ was like 5'8 and dunking we could talk about white men jumping. Athletes in golf is nothing new. The level of athleticism in all sports is just at a different level these days. The rewards for being good now are a lot more than in the 50s/60s, training is better, and there are just a heck of a lot more people to choose from. [/quote] I am only 6 ft. but I could dunk, 2 handed only small hands, into my middle 30's getting fat as much as age ended that. I think access as much as anything besides prize money has attracted better athletes. After WWII more public courses and relatively less expensive private clubs were built. So far the hoped for infusion of young minority athletes many believed Tiger would attract hasn't happened. At my home course an avid senior brings his grandson occasionally. The young man has some obvious talent. He says his grandson prefers basketball with his buddies. I think most pros come from families where golf is a big deal. Maybe the children of people Tiger attracts will produce more minority players.

This is a point I had not thought of. But golf is accessible to a pretty wide range of body types. Smaller players with superior flexibility or speed, superior ball striking, short game touch are competitive. I actually think guys over 6' 6" or over 300 lbs because of the increased difficulty repeating full swings while keeping everything under control is more of a challenge. I think the availability of longer shafted clubs with shafts that can basically be made stiffer and more forgiving heads helps them, but eventually keeping balance and control outstrips their size advantage. I imagine big guys are encouraged to play sports where size is crucial, so that might be part of it also. Off topic but one of the announcers at Wimbledon was relating a conversation with an NBA center about 7 footers eventually dominating tennis. The center didn't think so too difficult to bend your back and knees for all the low shots he felt. We smaller guys sometimes forget big can be limiting in sports besides horse racing and gymnastics even if running isn't required.

This is a point I had not thought of. But golf is accessible to a pretty wide range of body types. Smaller players with superior flexibility or speed, superior ball striking, short game touch are competitive. I actually think guys over 6' 6" or over 300 lbs because of the increased difficulty repeating full swings while keeping everything under control is more of a challenge. I think the availability of longer shafted clubs with shafts that can basically be made stiffer and more forgiving heads helps them, but eventually keeping balance and control outstrips their size advantage. I imagine big guys are encouraged to play sports where size is crucial, so that might be part of it also. Off topic but one of the announcers at Wimbledon was relating a conversation with an NBA center about 7 footers eventually dominating tennis. The center didn't think so too difficult to bend your back and knees for all the low shots he felt. We smaller guys sometimes forget big can be limiting in sports besides horse racing and gymnastics even if running isn't required.

01 I [quote name="zipazoid" url="/t/59993/top-50-players-in-the-world-better-now-or-better-when-jack-nicklaus-was-at-his-prime/36#post_737148"]I think a lot of this whole debate is generational preference. When I was 23, I thought the top players of that era - Nicklaus, Watson, Ballesteros - were soooo much better than the previous generation - Hogan, Snead, Demaret - it was sort of an 'ego trip' argument on my behalf to justify how good 'my guys' were. And it is happening again now that we have a new generation; they're being compared to my generation, and many are concluding oh, it's totally different now; they're so much better. Well yeah,they are, based on the various points brought up - better equipment, better fitness, swing coaches, etc. So I would concede that those elements have produced better prepared players, but more skilled players than my generation? I'll debate that one. You can't make me believe that Rory McIlroy is more skilled that Seve Ballesteros, for example. And yeah, I know we're talking about the top 50 and not the top 5. But the same paradigm applies - the Bill Rogers, Roger Maltbies & Ed Sneeds of my generation would still be just as competitive in today's tour given the same access to what the players of today's tour have. Therefore I reject that today's players are inherently more gifted than previous generations. They're just benefactors of advances in the game not available to previous generations. [/quote] This is the point I tried to make, I guess poorly. In the end if you took the players of past generations, have them develop under current conditions and they would be great. This whole premise, expressed dogmatically is intellectually arrogant. It is like saying Bill Gates is smarter than Einstein because with modern computers he can do calculations faster. Compare each to their generation given the conditions they performed under. You can make a valid argument that way and still be fair. Certainly Tiger is poised to claim the best golfer ever crown. Certainly the number of very good golfers has increased, mainly do to increases worldwide in the ability to make a living. I feel that the top 50 worldwide is closer than is being stated, and the top 10 may well have been better from 1950 - 1980, especially if you look at the US PGA tour, many posters such as Eric state opinions such as the number of strokes course difficulty has increased compared to equipment changes as fact. Of course I will admit I am fed up with Erics high handed he is God on high posting style.

Jack Nicklaus is the voice of a whole generation? I seem to recall you commuting on the poor quality of play on lower levels of the Nike tour and mini tours. The comparison is the top 50, not Monday qualifiers and club pros. Guys like Nicklaus internalize a certain kind of arrogance that refuses to recognize that their competitors are capable of beating them. It is part of the gift that allows them to perform their best under pressure. He also stated balls and clubs today give pros 100 yards on 2 full shots on par 5s and 3 - 4 strokes a round. Do you accept those statements as well.

I [quote name="brocks" url="/t/59993/top-50-players-in-the-world-better-now-or-better-when-jack-nicklaus-was-at-his-prime/18#post_736444"] But that's sort of the point. It's impossible to compare the innate talent of players of different generations, but you don't have to think about it very long to see that even if the talent level is exactly the same, the fields are going to be less deep when players pretty much depend on their talent and nothing else, to the point that Hogan was sometimes ridiculed for spending so much time on the range, compared with an era where players all get top of the line nutrition, training, coaching, computer analysis, etc. Even if you ignore the larger player base, and assume that there are the same number of players with X amount of potential, the percentage of players who reach 99% of their potential is going to be much higher when they are properly coached and trained, than when they have to dig it out of the dirt by themselves. I don't think so. You can't really go by the world records, because the very best of a generation might actually be some kind of anomaly. But when you're talking about the top 50, then the trends are a lot easier to spot. To take your example of track, the "impossible" four-minute mile barrier was first broken the same year Arnie turned pro (1954). This year, a dozen or so guys broke 4 minutes in a single weekend. http://www.flotrack.org/article/10258-TOP-RESULTS-Miles-around-the-nation-are-going-crazy[/quote] You totally missed my point. In 1954 milers were running on a cinder track. I ran on a cinder track in HS. One week after running a 2.03 half in warm calm weather on cinder I ran 1.58.6 on a then new composition track in cold windy weather. The tracks now are even faster. The fact that many more run sub 4 minute miles is easier today because the tracks, shoes, hyperbaric chambers etc make it easier. With all the advances the times should have decreased even more. FWIW my comparison was not really going back to 1954, since the OP started with the Nicklaus era. I believe that the top 50 once technological advances, better course conditions etc are considered the differences are much less than people believe. I believe that each generation is biased in favor of their own. There is no way to really make a valid comparison, but to say world record times is not valid mysifies me. The top 50 are the elite, Nicklaus was an elite player. Now your argument is average players? Average golfers are helped more by technology than elite players. Pros really only benefit from technology advances in long irons, woods, and the ball.

The real problem with these comparisons is that the comparison really should be based on would today's players without the equipment and training advances or would past players with modern equipment and training be competitive. With current nutrition and weight training the Dolphins, who didn't lose talent every year to free agency would be a great team. Look at mens track, for most distances, even with many more countries involved times have come down 1-2 % even with faster surfaces, lighter shoes, air domes, film, physiological research etc. In the absence of any way to make a true like to like comparison I believe each generation exaggerates the amount of improvement substantially.

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.

Good point, the participating golfers get to check off the I was an Olympian box. Besides you get to give the finger to all those who claim golfers aren't athletes:-P.

I voted majors. One week every 4 years doesn't mean much when there are somewhere between 50 and 150 golfers worldwide capable of winning any given week. Plus most of those golfers come from maybe 12 countries, meaning most won't be at the Olympics. Hopefully it helps grow the sport in additional countries,.

[quote name="dlance" url="/t/7289/is-golf-a-sport-or-a-game/342#post_728628"] MackJL06, no Disrespect intended. I have never played hockey myself. I picked it because they don't have to be able to run fast, throw hard, or or jump high (as people seem to think are the only things that make people athletic). I was trying to us it as an example that may compare to golf of alternate sports. [/quote] [quote name="Kapanda" url="/t/7289/is-golf-a-sport-or-a-game/342#post_728854"] But the level of athleticism required seems to be so low that it devalues the notion of sports as physical, competitive endeavours when grouping golf along with, say, soccer. With that said, since I've been misinterpreted before, I should clarify that, though I don't see golf as a sport (and who cares what I think anyway), I can see how the argument for it can be made. [/quote] The case of those saying golf is not a sport really boils down to narrowing the physical requirements down to a couple golf requires less of. Different sports require different mixes. This is why there is no athlete great at every sport. Michael Jordan failed to excel at baseball. I was an excellent 400 /800 meter runner, because my athletic mix skewed that way. FWIW most basketball players are not very fast, also true of baseball. I had a 42 inch standing vertical jump but was strictly intramural material for basketball. Athletic ability comes in different sized packages. Gymnasts aren't great at basketball and basketball players aren't great gymnasts. Some don't value the subtle talents required to hit a great lob shot in golf or drop shot in Tennis. OK but that argument is really about which sport has the greatest athletes. The number of former professional football, basketball, boxers etc who play awful golf, as seen on TV, few who could beat me, a pedestrian 13 handicap, supports this. Anyone who has played multiple sports recognizes this and picks their specialty sport partly on this basis. Maybe golfers are not the greatest athletes but it is athletic and being a superior athlete is a huge advantage. If that is your argument for why golf is not a sport it is fatally flawed. Since golf seems to meet any other definition golf is definitely a sport.

Pretend you are getting a paid golf lesson?

This covers most of it. Most slow play problems IMHO come from people waiting until it's their turn to think about what club,to hit, target, distance etc. Read your putt before it's your turn to putt etc. The other thing is unless looking for a lost ball keeping your butt welded to the cart seat is a huge time waster.

If the course is busy you should expect to be paired up. If you are a regular at a course and are known you will tend to be given some slack. As long as you don't pretend you are better than you are and are courteous, watch where others drives head etc I have never felt anyone judged me. Plus if you get paired with someone a bit better than you watching their decision making you will probably pick some things up. If someone offers unsolicited advice just tell them thanks but you have someone working with you and any thing more is an overload. Knowledge golfers won't usually do this anyway and the advice is usually worthless.

En[quote name="formula428" url="/t/59691/playing-9-or-18-by-yourself#post_731095"]Well, after the overwhelming percent of those who say (or do) play by themselves, I went out this evening. Shot pretty good and the course was relatively empty. I actually like it because if I was waiting for a group ahead of me, and no one was behind me, I'd practice a few chip shots that I had missed when I was scoring. In fact, it gave me a chance to play out of the bunker a few times (that I had previously shot badly on), since I don't have much experience with being in bunkers. All in all, shot a 51 on 9 holes including a birdie on a Par 5. Missed the eagle chip by a foot :/ I'll definitely be going solo more often, just so I can get some extra playing in. [/quote] My only caveat is that some singles expect to keep playing through foursomes repeatedly. If play is light and there are open holes coming up ok, but this is not the same as a slow foursome delaying everyone. I have seen singles throw temper tantrums, hit into groups etc. FWIW in hot weather I do what you were doing, add some on course practice, since play is light, often trying an alternate shot to compare the result and hit few range balls.

D[quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not/342#post_725714"]I agree, but that is why this situation is so unique. They are accommodating a person who CAN play. And the more I watch him limp around the practice range and course, the more happy I am with the decision to allow him to play. It's simply astonishing that somebody who cannot walk can play at such a high level. [/quote] I do find the no cart responders insist walking is integral to competitive golf, then based on this premise any other response is not logical. The reason for rules is to prevent a competitive advantage. It is clear Martin derives no advantage. There are always competitive advantages, for example Tiger and others have had the opportunity to play Olympic frequently, he attended Stanford and is a native of northern California. Access to instruction and quality courses at an early age varies greatly. The court decision is not some grand conspiracy to equalize competition for those who have not demonstrated the talent, skills, and commitment intrinsic to tournament golf. I see these responses not as logical, although if you accept the premise of walking being intrinsic many meet the test of internal logic. The truth is walking is a small part of the total competitive test, hardly a dominant part. Yes that is only my opinion, but given the number of golfers who compete well who are older, significantly over weight etc I feel this is greatly over stated. If cardiovascular fitness is so important then I, a former sub 147 800 meter runner should have a big advantage. I am average at best even after many years of practice and play. The tenor of a significant number of the no cart responses seem atavistic rather than true defenses of fair competition. I wonder if this attitude part of the reason so many feel golfers are elitist, not in a positive way, and feel unwelcome. I detect much of this in other sports I have tried. In fact it reminds me of football players questioning teammates toughness for not playing through injury. Hopefully the concussion issue is bringing some reason to this attitude. In other words I feel these responses are reflective of the the value placed on toughness. I feel dealing with the mental stress from nerves, making good decisions and shots while competing is the type of toughness intrinsic to golf, not overcoming fatigue brought on by walking. On balance I am shocked that so many seem to be applying the values of other sports rather than those of golf, traditionally a game of honor and gentlemanly behavior. I am disappointed to find golfers are becoming more like other sports rather than leading with a more enlightened perspective.

No thanks, 50/50 whether I would laugh maniacaly or make grown man sobbing noises.

Granted that one long par 3 per round is a good idea, we all understand separating the best from we hackers. I also think fronting long par 3s with sand or water is getting more common. It makes these holes almost unplayable for women and seniors. One course I play has a 175 yard carry over water to the front into the prevailing wind, grass mounds with rough surround it, long left is a hill, shallow bunker on the right. This is the white tees, the back tees have a 215 yard carry. The green is crowned. On windy days I am now laying up short of the water with an 8 or 9 and hitting a LW. I par it 20 to 30 % of the time this way. Without the water I would double that. I believe better players hit a fade since the greenside bunker isn't much of a penalty. I play with only one person who gets a par more than 50% of the time but he carries his 5 iron 190 - 195 yards, 3 215 - 220. He says that from the back in the wind he intentionally puts it in the bunker. How is this fun?

I would try to play as a single during slow times and mix a little on course practice with a brief 20 - 30 ball post play session on a specific issues; Chipping, driving, a new shot etc. If you are playing poorly and extra range time is required try to make it as much like play as possible, I doubt high reps work for you, so switch your emphasis every 10 swings, return to the main issue every alternating 10 swings.

60 Degree LW. It saves me more strokes more consistently than any other club. Putter is next, but some days my poor reads don't let me take advantage of it.

I want to add, the reflex response to add length to challenge pros leads to boring golf. It really is lazy thinking. Holes that penalize poor shots with grass bunkers, tough, putts etc if you go for birdie and miss but leave a reasonable 2 putt if a less aggressive shot is played are best. Length often makes birdie more about luck. This is part of the reason putting and driving length dominate tour golf and shot making has been done de-emphasized.

For r me long par 4s are the worst. I still agree though. For one thing a par 3 with sand or water, up or down hill, is one of the few times that every level of golfer has an opportunity to apply or learn shotmaking skills. I recently played the same par 3 twice the same day. The first time I choked down and hit a smooth 7. The second time I hit a full 8. My partner was puzzled but I enjoyed trying the shot both ways. Overly long par 3s mandating long irons take creativity away. All but the most elite must just aim for the fat of the green.

The one concrete part of this that convinced me the Martin exception should stand, my original gut response was that it shouldn't, was equity. Does the advantage of the cart exceed the negative impact his disability has on his ability to play golf? I don't believe it does. If we are going to allow the long putter, originally introduced to allow senior golfers with bad backs and other problems making use of short putters difficult, the yips part came latter, then I think this is a far smaller accommodation. I have to wonder if you can't beat a player basically playing on one leg is it really about fair competition or keeping your own advantage maximized.

No Phil, it is not that there is a legitimate argument that it is an advantage to ride, it obviously is. Yes walking, and the extra effort is intrinsic to tournament golf. The issue is given Martins condition did he derive an unfair advantage. Your answer is yes. The problem is your justification is based on a tough guys suck it up philosophy. You substitute childish comparisons for reasonable adult thought. Of course it is every one else that has a problem right? You are offensive.

I would add a postscript to my basic answer. Those who post ridiculous comparisons like 2000 yard golf courses for women or the Tom Brady example are hard to take seriously. A cart really is only changing how you enter the playing area, kind of like a relief pitcher in baseball. No one suggested the playing area be altered, equipment used or basic skills required be changed. The court decision made it clear that type of response was not being supported. I would be more harsh in my response but it has been my experience that those who are willing to make such arguments are the quickest to say they have been dissed.