Better athletes=Better scores

[Garland Bayley]

... The funny thing here is how much energy is spent blaming ONLY the ball for that.

The funny thing to me is how much sedentary old men sit around blaming low scoring on athleticism.

Athleticism has not made large discrete jumps in performance over the years.

The introduction of the new ball caused two large discrete jumps in golf performance in recent history.
The first one came when the ball was introduced.
The second one came when they figured out how to use technology to match this new ball with equipment.

Players went from hitting 7 and 8 irons to greens to hitting wedges. Scoring had to come down. Athleticism had very little to do with it.
Athleticism plays a very small component. As things were going, length was increasing at a very small rate. Some of the increase came from athleticism. Some of the increase came from better instruction, better understanding of the golf swing, etc.

Without the ball, the USGA says players would be hitting it at least 25 yards shorter. That makes length increases from athleticism generously estimated to be 5% or less IMO.

[Mike Hendren]

Winners never putt poorly.  Perhaps putter technology, truly round golf balls and smoother putting surfaces account for most of the improvement in scoring. 

Bogey

[Garland Bayley]

Winners never putt poorly.  Perhaps putter technology, truly round golf balls and smoother putting surfaces account for most of the improvement in scoring. 

Bogey

Not to mention the agronomy that has gone into growing and maintaining perfect greens.

[Phil Benedict]

I heard an interview with Dick Vermeil on the radio.  He was asked how football changed from the time he left the Eagles until the time he joined the Rams, the gap being around 15 years of football evolution.  He said the biggest change was the size of the interior lineman.  In the 80's it was rare for a lineman to weigh 300 pounds; by 2000 virtually all offensive lineman and some defensive lineman were over 300 lbs, with 350 lbs being commonplace.

Is the rise of clinically obese players a sign of increasing athleticism?

[Padraig Dooley]

Interesting, so do you think the Asian girls that are dominating the LPGA are better "athletes".  They sure as hell aren't bigger.

I'm not sure Asia and Korea is a big as success story as people think. Much higher levels of injury and burn out than any where else in the world.

One other interesting stat about the Ladies Tour, the average driving distance was 249 yards in 2007 but 248 in 2011.

The reason behind better scores is better athletes but that's just one part of the puzzle, equipment, technique, conditions are all factors as well. I think conditions have the biggest factor, followed by equipment and then technique and athleticism. However an improvement in any will lead to an improvement in scoring.

There were plenty of great athletes who played golf down through the years from Mike Stranahan to Sam Snead, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and more. Now the general tour player is a bit fitter than his counterparts of the past, which leads to a slight improvement in scoring but not the biggest factor.

Interestingly size is not the biggest factor in power or speed and hence long driving. Speed and power are acquired skills that are picked up during childhood particularly during the two main growth spurts, i.e from ages 6-9 and 12-15. This is why you'll come across small guys who hit it miles. Loius Oosthuizen and Rory McIlroy aren't particularly big . Faldo would be a very good example of a big guy who didn't hit it very far.

[David_Tepper]

Without getting in the debate of "athleticism" and how it can be measured, there is no doubt the athletes in just about all sports have gotten bigger, stronger and faster over the past 20-30 years.

I remember once reading that 5"9" to 5'11" (Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, etc.) was considered the "perfect" height for a golfer. Guys like George Bayer and Mike Souchak were considered to be unusually large among professional golfers in the 1950's & 60. Now you have dozens of guys (Els, Mickelson, Singh, Couples, Quiros, Colsearts, Overton,et al.) playing at the highest levels of the game who are as big or bigger than Bayer and Souchak.

It is the same in just about every sport. Pitchers in baseball, many of the top tennis players, even pro hockey players, are now routinely 6'3" or more. If you went back 30 or 40 years, few of the top athletes were taller than 6 feet.    

"Interestingly size is not the biggest factor in power or speed and hence long driving."

Padraig D. -

Have you ever seen a professional long-drive contest? The majority of the competitors are well over 6 feet tall and weigh more than 200 pounds.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

Bayer was 6' 5", but Souchak was only 5' 11"
Bayer "attended the University of Washington and was a member of the football team from 1946–1949; he played in the 1949 East-West Shrine Game.[2][3] After college, he was drafted by the Washington Redskins in the 20th round (253rd overall)."

So much for the old guys being unathletic.

[Padraig Dooley]

   

"Interestingly size is not the biggest factor in power or speed and hence long driving."

Padraig D. -

Have you ever seen a professional long-drive contest? The majority of the competitors are well over 6 feet tall and weigh more than 200 pounds.

DT

David

Jaime Sadlowski is 5'11" and 165lbs.

What I'm trying to say is long distances are easily achieved by smallish players, that size isn't the main factor.

[David_Tepper]

Padraig -

There is no doubt there a golfers under 6' who can drive the ball a long way. There is also no doubt that the majority of the guys who are the longest drivers of the ball are also the biggest physically.

DT  

[A.G._Crockett]

Bayer was 6' 5", but Souchak was only 5' 11"
Bayer "attended the University of Washington and was a member of the football team from 1946–1949; he played in the 1949 East-West Shrine Game.[2][3] After college, he was drafted by the Washington Redskins in the 20th round (253rd overall)."

So much for the old guys being unathletic.

You are THE master of redefining the argument to "prove" a point that you want to make.  It consistently limits the discussion, but that's your right.

Saying that there are more good athletes today, and that they are better trained and conditioned is NOT the same thing as saying the "old guys" weren't athletic.  But there ARE more good athletes playing golf today, and the top athletes ARE, for the most part better trained, conditioned, and on and on. 

And it is worth noting that both Bayer and Souchak were able to play college football long, long before black athletes were allowed to participate.  THAT makes a difference.

[A.G._Crockett]

... The funny thing here is how much energy is spent blaming ONLY the ball for that.

The funny thing to me is how much sedentary old men sit around blaming low scoring on athleticism.

Athleticism has not made large discrete jumps in performance over the years.

The introduction of the new ball caused two large discrete jumps in golf performance in recent history.
The first one came when the ball was introduced.
The second one came when they figured out how to use technology to match this new ball with equipment.

Players went from hitting 7 and 8 irons to greens to hitting wedges. Scoring had to come down. Athleticism had very little to do with it.
Athleticism plays a very small component. As things were going, length was increasing at a very small rate. Some of the increase came from athleticism. Some of the increase came from better instruction, better understanding of the golf swing, etc.

Without the ball, the USGA says players would be hitting it at least 25 yards shorter. That makes length increases from athleticism generously estimated to be 5% or less IMO.

Garland,
YOU might be a sedentary old man, but I'm not.  I'm 60; still coach HS basketball, run 10k's, walk a 7000 yd. hilly golf course, lift weights, and do yoga.

And if you think there haven't been "discrete jumps" in athleticism over the years, you just aren't paying attention.  Kids are bigger and faster than they have EVER been, and there is no use denying it.  They've grown up eating beef and drinking milk with all kinds of hormones, among other things.  Someone pointed out the change is size of linemen; the same thing is true in basketball, both men and women.  I went to a high school with 1800 kids in three grades and with a great athletic program; our center was 6-6.  There was one girl in the school as much as 6 feet tall.  Now I teach at a school with 270 kids in four grades; we have 4 boys 6-6 or taller, and three girls above 6 feet.  Kids are also much, much stronger and faster now.

And before you say that all of that doesn't add up to whatever the hell YOU decide "athleticism" means, let me just add a great truth of athletics.  If everything about me and you as athletes is equal, except that one of us is bigger and stronger, guess what?  That's the one that wins.

[Jason Thurman]

Is there another sport where the defense has remained static.  How would Babe Ruth hit against modern pitching.  Would the Galloping Ghost go boo when he was hit by Ray Lewis?  The reason most modern sports continue to thrive is because as the offense becomes bigger, stronger, faster, the defense matches up perfectly.  If golf is a sport and not a hobby then it's defense must do the same.

I've thought about that a bit. If we throw out non-scoring sports like running, swimming, high jump, etc and just look at "scoring" sports like football, baseball, soccer, basketball, tennis, and golf (among others), golf is unique in that it doesn't have defense from another player. So yeah, the option is either to beef up the defense by lengthening the course and making it tougher, or just accept that scores will get lower just like winning times get lower in running or swimming. I don't have a problem with elite players shooting in the mid 50s conceptually, but if they can do it without ever hitting anything bigger than a 7 iron for an approach then that's no longer a very good test of golf, which is the real problem. The issue with shorter courses isn't lower scores. It's a lack of shot values.

For Garland: How do you measure athleticism?

[Joe Leenheer]

Do better athletes = Better Scores.  Yes.

But I don't think "athletes" is defined by body type.  Who is a better athlete?  Shaq or Steve Nash?

I do believe however athletic ability has a huge impact on golf.  Golf is not about who can jump the highest or lift the most weight.

A million guys (and some gals) can swing the club hard and hit the ball far.

It comes down to trust and touch.  How well can they can judge distance on half shots. Pull the right club out of the bag under pressure. 

From what I've seen, the best golfers have great athletic ability, but at first glance wouldn't be considered "athletes".   

[A.G._Crockett]

Do better athletes = Better Scores.  Yes.

But I don't think "athletes" is defined by body type.  Who is a better athlete?  Shaq or Steve Nash?

I do believe however athletic ability has a huge impact on golf.  Golf is not about who can jump the highest or lift the most weight.

A million guys (and some gals) can swing the club hard and hit the ball far.

It comes down to trust and touch.  How well can they can judge distance on half shots. Pull the right club out of the bag under pressure. 

From what I've seen, the best golfers have great athletic ability, but at first glance wouldn't be considered "athletes".   

100% correct, and to reinforce the original point there are far, far more people with "great athletic ability" playing golf now AND they are far, far better trained and conditioned.  Inarguable.

Later today when I have a minute, I'll try to find Peter Kostis's comments about the competition that Tiger has played vs. the competition that Jack played.  It is eye-opening and speaks directly to what we are discussing here.

[Garland Bayley]

Is there another sport where the defense has remained static.  How would Babe Ruth hit against modern pitching.  Would the Galloping Ghost go boo when he was hit by Ray Lewis?  The reason most modern sports continue to thrive is because as the offense becomes bigger, stronger, faster, the defense matches up perfectly.  If golf is a sport and not a hobby then it's defense must do the same.

I've thought about that a bit. If we throw out non-scoring sports like running, swimming, high jump, etc and just look at "scoring" sports like football, baseball, soccer, basketball, tennis, and golf (among others), golf is unique in that it doesn't have defense from another player. So yeah, the option is either to beef up the defense by lengthening the course and making it tougher, or just accept that scores will get lower just like winning times get lower in running or swimming. I don't have a problem with elite players shooting in the mid 50s conceptually, but if they can do it without ever hitting anything bigger than a 7 iron for an approach then that's no longer a very good test of golf, which is the real problem. The issue with shorter courses isn't lower scores. It's a lack of shot values.

For Garland: How do you measure athleticism?

Hi ability in multiple sports, thereby testing and demonstrating multiple physical skills at a high level. E.g., like Jack Nicklaus and not like Tiger Woods.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
...
And if you think there haven't been "discrete jumps" in athleticism over the years, you just aren't paying attention.  Kids are bigger and faster than they have EVER been, and there is no use denying it.  They've grown up eating beef and drinking milk with all kinds of hormones, among other things.  Someone pointed out the change is size of linemen; the same thing is true in basketball, both men and women.  I went to a high school with 1800 kids in three grades and with a great athletic program; our center was 6-6.  There was one girl in the school as much as 6 feet tall.  Now I teach at a school with 270 kids in four grades; we have 4 boys 6-6 or taller, and three girls above 6 feet.  Kids are also much, much stronger and faster now.
...

Apparently you don't understand the difference between continuous and discrete. No one is going to argue with you that physical attributes of the human races have been increasing at a slow continuous pace. When I was a teenager, I had to buy clothes from the big and tall store. By the time my son equaled my size, that size was the most common size in the normal clothing store, or so it seemed to me who had an entirely different experience. That change took place a bit at a time over 30 years. It did not jump 1/2 way there in one year, and then the other 1/2 way there in a year a couple of years later.

Although I agree that players are hitting balls farther due to athleticism, in my estimation, the length the pros are hitting balls has increased due to athleticism less than it has from agronomy.

EDIT: Perhaps it is worth noting that Jack was I think 5' 11" which seems to be about the range of a good number of the top players of his age. Tiger claims to be 6' 2" which also seems to be about the range of a good number of the top players of his age. That change took place over 35 years.

[Garland Bayley]

Bayer was 6' 5", but Souchak was only 5' 11"
Bayer "attended the University of Washington and was a member of the football team from 1946–1949; he played in the 1949 East-West Shrine Game.[2][3] After college, he was drafted by the Washington Redskins in the 20th round (253rd overall)."

So much for the old guys being unathletic.

You are THE master of redefining the argument to "prove" a point that you want to make.  It consistently limits the discussion, but that's your right.

Saying that there are more good athletes today, and that they are better trained and conditioned is NOT the same thing as saying the "old guys" weren't athletic.  But there ARE more good athletes playing golf today, and the top athletes ARE, for the most part better trained, conditioned, and on and on. 

And it is worth noting that both Bayer and Souchak were able to play college football long, long before black athletes were allowed to participate.  THAT makes a difference.

The "so much for" comment was added with a wink and a smile, which unfortunately doesn't come across in my writing, and I am very forgetful about using "smileys".