[Garland Bayley]

With high school student Jordan Spieth doing so well at the Byron Nelson for the second year in a row, and Mannasero doing so well at the European PGA, is it not an indication that the ball has become easier to manage for the youngsters than it was when Tiger tried to play the PGA tour? It is easier for the youngsters to rip the cover off and not pay the consequences, thereby becoming competitive at a younger age. They don't have to spend years learning to control the ball like generations past.

Furthermore, another thread complains that great courses are being messed with so in Tom Doak's words, they can increase the score by 2 to 4 strokes at the major championships, because the ruling bodies have lost control of the equipment.

Won't golf be taking on a bit of the characteristics of gymnastics where the youngsters rule? Where the younger and more flexible you are the longer you will hit the low spinning ball and have early success that will fade all too quickly?

Before you jump on me about Matteo, I know he is not a long ball hitter. But, would he be able to control a spinning ball well enough to have his current level of success?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I think they would learn how to play with whatever equipment was available to them. But, I think the main difference in today and even 15 or so years ago is the age at which you can start playing tournaments. A good number of junior tournaments have flights/divisions for kids as young as 5. That has been the case for a few years now, but certainly not the case even when I was coming up through; I think the first tournament I played in was when I was 12 and I can't recall too many having divisions below that. So, today, 18 year old kids have 8-10 years experience playing in tournaments, and probably winning. That is the difference between today and 25 or 50 years ago, I think.

[Padraig Dooley]

Garland

Golf is not like gymnastics, which is an early specialisation sport. Golf is a late specialisation sport.

Golfers like Jordan Spieth, Peter Uihlein etc. are the product of better training.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The average age of all of this year's winners is 32.8 years.

Not old, but if the age of a competitive tour player is between 18 and 50, 32.8 is just about the middle of their careers.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

Golf is not like gymnastics, which is an early specialisation sport. Golf is a late specialisation sport.

Golfers like Jordan Spieth, Peter Uihlein etc. are the product of better training.

Better training than Tiger Woods?
As good a talent as Tiger Woods?

[Dan King]

I thought from the title of this thread it was going to be about Izzy Beisiegel who just qualified via tour school for the Canadian Tour.

Lorne Rubenstein on Beisiegel makes history at Canadian Tour Q-school

Cheers,
Dan King

They say golf came easy to me becasue I was a good athlete, but there's not any girl on the LPGA Tour who worked near as hard as I did in golf. It's the toughest game I ever tackled.
 --Babe Zaharias

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Garland

Golf is not like gymnastics, which is an early specialisation sport. Golf is a late specialisation sport.

Golfers like Jordan Spieth, Peter Uihlein etc. are the product of better training.

Better training than Tiger Woods?
As good a talent as Tiger Woods?

When Tiger Woods was the same age as Peter Uihlein he had won 3 US Junior Am's, 3 US Am's and a Masters. Thats a crazy comparison. Spieth has played well this week and is a great player. But for a real look at young players, take a look at what happened to Matt Kuchar and Justin Rose. They were great as Am's and had a few good pro tournaments, but it took them years to play to the pro level consistently.

However, Tiger was a rarity in preparation 15 years ago when he came out on tour, now all the kids train and prepare like he does, and yet thus far, none of them have seen anywhere near that level of success at that age, amateur or professional. Its just that now, more people go chasing that paycheck at a younger age than before, like pro basketball a few years ago, but that trend slowed down greatly, we'll see how long this really young trend lasts in pro golf.

[JNC Lyon]

Garland,

I'm not sure how far Mannasero hits it.  I know Spieth and Uihlein kill it.  However, those two guys are very far from being dominant at the professional level.  Did you hear what they said about Spieth at the Byron Nelson?  He lives 10 minutes away from the golf course, and he played six practice rounds.  He is good, but one decent tournament is a far cry from dominating the sport week in and week out.  Uihlein?  Sure, he does well at the college and amateur level, but that is very different from the professional level.  His teammate, Rickie Fowler, was head and shoulders above him at the 2009 Walker Cup, and Fowler has proved to be a solid, but not dominant tour player.  Uihlein has a long way to go to dominate.

Most of the young players right now are from Europe, which is pretty much the way it has always been.  Their culture is very different over there in terms of college and when kids start pursuing a career.

I wouldn't worry about golf becoming a sport of the young.  Didn't Tom Watson almost win the British Open two years ago at age 60?

[Tom_Doak]

JNC:  Yes, Tom Watson did almost win at 60 ... on a links course that was playing very short and required great shotmaking.  [There's not one of those on the PGA Tour.]  What that really showed was just how deficient modern players [under 40] are at shotmaking, because they don't need to know.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Not to pile on the kid Spieth, but he shot 77 today. So, the thoughts of the end of the world coming because of a young kid being near the top of the page in a tour event are rather overstated. I think he has the right thought on the matter though, positive experience, but focus on college and the next step. Only seven golfers come to mind that have really been elite in their early to mid-20's, Morris, Hagen, Jones, Nelson, Nicklaus, Seve and Woods, and Morris is the only one of those to be elite in his teens...but that was 140 years ago. I don't see a major reversal in history here, just some good playing young guys, it will take a while for them to be elite, just witness the career of Phil Mickelson, he won a bunch of events early, but he's won more events after turning 30 than before, and all his majors. That will continue to be the case going forward.

[Sam Morrow]

Golf has nothing to do with age, that's one of the greatest things about golf. I wouldn't get to excited about Speith yet, don't get me wrong, he is awesome but Tadd Fujikawa did pretty good at Wailae.

[Garland Bayley]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

[Sam Morrow]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

But they are just playing the ball that is around these days. A good or great player or even a crappy player will be the same no matter what. The ball is a variable in the game.

[Garland Bayley]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

But they are just playing the ball that is around these days. A good or great player or even a crappy player will be the same no matter what. The ball is a variable in the game.

Not so sure. With the other ball Corey Pavin would win more and J B Homes less don't you think?

[Sam Morrow]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

But they are just playing the ball that is around these days. A good or great player or even a crappy player will be the same no matter what. The ball is a variable in the game.

Not so sure. With the other ball Corey Pavin would win more and J B Homes less don't you think?

I think Corey Pavin would win more because he was a better player than JB Holmes.

[Garland Bayley]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

But they are just playing the ball that is around these days. A good or great player or even a crappy player will be the same no matter what. The ball is a variable in the game.

Not so sure. With the other ball Corey Pavin would win more and J B Homes less don't you think?

I think Corey Pavin would win more because he was a better player than JB Holmes.

Is that how you say that without the new ball JB Holmes would never have won at all?

[Sam Morrow]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

But they are just playing the ball that is around these days. A good or great player or even a crappy player will be the same no matter what. The ball is a variable in the game.

Not so sure. With the other ball Corey Pavin would win more and J B Homes less don't you think?

I think Corey Pavin would win more because he was a better player than JB Holmes.

Is that how you say that without the new ball JB Holmes would never have won at all?

No I think no matter what ball J.B. Holmes would have been good enough to play world class golf. I just look at Corey Pavin as being an overall better player.

[Doug Siebert]

Isn't the rise of the young guys because of Tiger Woods playing since he was old enough to walk?  Nicklaus didn't start until he was 10, and he was the best ever, so before Tiger parents probably didn't think there was any point to taking a kid out to play when he was not even in grade school.  If you start younger you'll get good when younger.

[David_Tepper]

Didn't Seve Ballesteros finish 2nd in the British Open when he as 19? There have always been phenoms in golf from time to time. The modern ball has little, if anything, to do with it.

[PCCraig]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

What is this mythical "new ball???"

You know everyone plays with the same level o technology, regardless of their age.

But they are just playing the ball that is around these days. A good or great player or even a crappy player will be the same no matter what. The ball is a variable in the game.

Not so sure. With the other ball Corey Pavin would win more and J B Homes less don't you think?

I think Corey Pavin would win more because he was a better player than JB Holmes.

Is that how you say that without the new ball JB Holmes would never have won at all?

No I think no matter what ball J.B. Holmes would have been good enough to play world class golf. I just look at Corey Pavin as being an overall better player.

[Don_Mahaffey]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

I don't get your logic. Tiger won 3 Jr Ams and 3 US ams, all in a row. When Woods won the Jr Am at 15 he was the youngest ever, when he won the next year he was the first multiple winner, when he won it for the 3rd year in a row he set a record likely never to be beat. After doing all that he became the youngest to ever win the US am and went on to win it 2 more times. He won a USGA championship for 6 consecutive years and was the youngest to win both the Jr Am and the Am. He made the cut at the masters at the age of 19. How is Spieth doing better than Tiger at the same age?

[Tim Martin]

My point is that there are young players not named Peter Uhlein (I don't even know how he got into the discussion) that have done better in their teen years than Tiger did. Specifically Mannasero and Speith. Tiger had a different ball to contend with. Therefore, I hypothesize that the ball is part of what allows them to be competitive. What other difference is there? Training? Has it changed that much in the last 20 years? Is it as much a factor as the change in ball? Would all the young lions Tom mentions be near as successful if they were still playing with the old ball?

I don't get your logic. Tiger won 3 Jr Ams and 3 US ams, all in a row. When Woods won the Jr Am at 15 he was the youngest ever, when he won the next year he was the first multiple winner, when he won it for the 3rd year in a row he set a record likely never to be beat. After doing all that he became the youngest to ever win the US am and went on to win it 2 more times. He won a USGA championship for 6 consecutive years and was the youngest to win both the Jr Am and the Am. He made the cut at the masters at the age of 19. How is Spieth doing better than Tiger at the same age?

I think Don`s argument is spot on. Woods could have easily made some cuts in pro tournaments at Spieth`s age if that was the direction he went in. I would say that were plenty of players of different eras who could have accomplished the same. Mannasero took the road less traveled and rather than play college golf headed for the pro ranks. I don`t see what the ball or modern technology have to do with it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

When Tiger was doing all that winning in the early years he was using a wound ball, and any player in his mid-twenties or older probably learned to play the game using a wound ball.

All the players who used balata/wound balls before 2000 all made a seamless transition to solid corse. There is nothing to suggest that reverse wouldn't be true.

[Garland Bayley]

Didn't Seve Ballesteros finish 2nd in the British Open when he as 19? There have always been phenoms in golf from time to time. The modern ball has little, if anything, to do with it.

Seve could have finished 2nd in the British Open at age 15 with the modern ball.

[Garland Bayley]

...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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()