Slightly OT, It's no longer a mature mans game

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

...Woods could have easily made some cuts in pro tournaments at Spieth`s age if that was the direction he went in....

No he couldn't. He tried and failed. These two are directly analogous. They both got invites to the local pro tour event. Tiger couldn't make the cut. Spieth could.

Spieth has NOT won 3 US Junior Championships, neither has Manassero. Fact of the matter is, none of these kids are head and shoulders above those who have come before them. They are at the same level and in all likelihood it will take them several years to really be top level players, if they make it that far at all.

[Garland Bayley]

...He made the cut at the masters at the age of 19. How is Spieth doing better than Tiger at the same age?

I believe that Speith will never be as good as Tiger at the same age. However, given an easier ball to play, he has obtained better results against the pros than Tiger did in the mid teen years.

I guess another couple of names to throw into the pot are Ryo and Rory. Have they benefited from a ball that was easier to master?
Why such a spike in teenage phenoms now?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Greg Norman on the younger players:

"It's an impressive group,I think it's a sign of the times. They start so early now, and their training technique and conditioning is so generally top-class that these kids come out here prepared to play. They have no fear."

Adam Scott, same topic, says it's the 'Tiger effect':

"Every generation learns from the one before, Tiger won early and Sergio learned from that, and he did it early. I was doing it at a fairly early age.
Now you have Rory and Ryo. They've learned from guys like Tiger. Look at Ryo. He's 18 and he's been doing this for three years. He's already played a Presidents Cup. That's hard to get your head around."

Phil Mickelson says, rather succinctly:

"They all have so much game."


I was surprised that none of these fellows mentioned the ball. 

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

...He made the cut at the masters at the age of 19. How is Spieth doing better than Tiger at the same age?

I believe that Speith will never be as good as Tiger at the same age. However, given an easier ball to play, he has obtained better results against the pros than Tiger did in the mid teen years.

I guess another couple of names to throw into the pot are Ryo and Rory. Have they benefited from a ball that was easier to master?
Why such a spike in teenage phenoms now?

Because $989,415 (the #100 on the money list from 2010) is much more difficult to turn down than $35,612 (#100 from the 1980 money list). Even adjusted for inflation, they're playing for MUCH more money today. That makes it harder to turn down.

Mr. Kennedy you are spot on, these kids simply train from a younger age, the ball, clubs nothing else has much to do with it. I recall Jack Nicklaus saying he never even too golf "seriously" until he won the US Am. That is a difference in the times.

[Garland Bayley]

Greg Norman on the younger players:

"It's an impressive group,I think it's a sign of the times. They start so early now, and their training technique and conditioning is so generally top-class that these kids come out here prepared to play. They have no fear."

How many teenage phenoms do you expect to not be fit?

Adam Scott, same topic, says it's the 'Tiger effect':

"Every generation learns from the one before, Tiger won early and Sergio learned from that, and he did it early. I was doing it at a fairly early age.
Now you have Rory and Ryo. They've learned from guys like Tiger. Look at Ryo. He's 18 and he's been doing this for three years. He's already played a Presidents Cup. That's hard to get your head around."

It's hard for him to get his head around it, because the change in ball hasn't occurred to him.

Phil Mickelson says, rather succinctly:

"They all have so much game."

Do they really have so much game? Can they work the ball both ways like Tiger could at a young age. I don't know about this subset of young phenoms, but it is an often cited thing that young players today cannot work the ball like players of yesterday.

I was surprised that none of these fellows mentioned the ball. 

How old are you Jamie. Or, rather did you go through the ball transition with a high skill level? How was your long game before the new ball? How was it after the new ball?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Mr. Bayley not sure if you noticed, but that was Mr. Jim Kennedy who you just quoted. However, I will answer your final question. I am presently 32 years old. I have competed with both golf balls. I picked up about one club of distance when I switched to a ProV, I have picked up another in the past 10 years because I am in better shape and stronger. I much preferred the old balls however because I could spin the ball and control it much better with the wedges, even with the deep box grooves from a couple of years ago. I can still work the ball however I want, its simple mechanics, if the club face comes through and strikes the ball facing left or right of target, the ball will go where the face is pointed.

Clubs and balls make less difference than you think, Mr. Bayley. The best players would still be the best even if the game were played with tobacco sticks and river rocks. And the worst would still be the worst. Bubba Watson and those guys would still be able to play out there, they have that kind of talent.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,

Where did you see 'fit'? Norman said training technique and conditioning as it relates to being prepared for golf. That is much more specific than just being 'fit'.

Scott is 30 years old, has played both wound and solid balls, and is a professional who knows the ins and outs of being a young 'Phenom'. If the ball mattered as much as you are contending don't you think he might have noticed? 

Mickelson seems to think they have game, I would need to see at least one source, with the same chops as PM, before I would even entertain the notion that they do not.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Clubs and balls make less difference than you think, Mr. Bayley. The best players would still be the best even if the game were played with tobacco sticks and river rocks. And the worst would still be the worst. Bubba Watson and those guys would still be able to play out there, they have that kind of talent.

Thanks for your answer Jamie. As for Bubba, I purposely left him out when mentioning JB Holmes as it is well known that Bubba works the ball significantly. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of him as an example supporting my "mature" idea. He has become a winner at a much more mature age than a Ryo, Rory, or Matteo, perhaps because my hypothesis would say it takes more mature players to win with working the ball. Actually Bubba has admitted that it has taken some maturing for him to accept the variance in working of the ball, before he was able to deal with it better when it was off.

However, I will take your perspective on this, since you are in the target group, and I am not. The low spinning balls definitely help players of my ilk, because we curve the ball by accident, and our accidents are reduced. It was the possibility of reduction of accidents amongst the less experienced players (teenagers) that suggests the theory to me. You clearly are more experienced in the quantity of accidents amongst the highly talented, so can speak to that better. Perhaps in my copious spare time I can collect data on teenage results through the ball change era and quantify this for proof or disproof of the hypothesis. NOT!