News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2020, 06:27:17 AM »
It got easier when you don't have to hit the sweet spot consistently to compete!


It got easier to stick around long enough to get better, is what you really mean.


I think that's the unspoken influence of "more forgiving" equipment. It's easier to break 100, 90, and maybe even 80.


It's still just as hard to break 70.


And breaking 70 isn't what it used to be.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Dave Doxey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2020, 10:33:08 AM »
Trevino summed it up when he said "The older I get, the better I used to be"

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2020, 10:56:11 AM »
Forty years ago there were 225M people in the US, today there are 330M people.  That is a growth of 47%.  Assuming that the number or golfers grew at a similar rate then golfers can be getting worse on average and there would be way more good golfers.


Does the USGA release data on how many golfers they have in their handicapping database and the distribution of handicaps?  That would also be able to answer the question.

Michael Wolf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2020, 12:09:21 PM »
The biggest gains in depth are in the women's game. The USGA Women's Am didn't even need qualifying until the 1970's.


Michael

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2020, 12:18:03 PM »
I still think it comes back to the opportunities/tools/resources available to the average joe to develop into a top notch amateur.  Its night and day different.


A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2020, 12:43:31 PM »
I still think it comes back to the opportunities/tools/resources available to the average joe to develop into a top notch amateur.  Its night and day different.
Kalen, you are absolutely correct.  There is a default setting among this group of Grumpy Old Men to attribute everything to equipment making the game easier and the world a lesser place, but I really don't think that has much to do with this. 

The vast majority of top notch amateurs started playing golf early in life, most of them in the junior program at a club.  That moves on to junior tournaments, of which there are now an abundance compared to "the good old days".  So high school and college golf are more competitive than they used to be, and kids work harder to compete.  They practice more, they get better instruction, they work out, they compete more, and so on.
I don't think the guys winning golf tournaments at ANY level are any better than the guys that were winning those same tournaments 30 years ago.  But there are a LOT more guys that can win because there are a lot more guys that are working hard at the game growing up than there used to be. 

"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2020, 08:01:44 PM »
The biggest gains in depth are in the women's game. The USGA Women's Am didn't even need qualifying until the 1970's.


Michael


When I was playing in the MD and Mid Atlantic Opens there were no qualifying rounds. You just needed to be a four handicap. Not so now.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Richard Fisher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2020, 08:32:32 AM »
Agree 100% likewise. The flexible Competition Scratch Score system has had a major impact: I remember several years ago the late Irish international Neil Kelly saying that a CSS at Portrush or Portmarnock that could go up to 76 or 77 in a strong wind was a much more lenient target than the stern, fixed SSS of 73 (or whatever) that he and his contemporaries encountered in their competition days in the 1970s. In a related vein, the basic Harlech SSS from the medal tees is now assessed at 73, a full three shots higher than that which applied (for 95% the same golf course) forty years ago.

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2020, 07:21:50 AM »
I think this is a function of money. There is so much more money in the game now that any kid who shows any promise at all will work at it (or their parents will make them) hard. The prize for being good is much bigger and so more people want to be good, so they work at it harder.


As to another point, length is not the be all and end all. If it were, the WLDA stuff would be the same people as the tour players (or similar), but to my knowledge, there is virtually no overlap at all. It certainly helps, but there is still more to the game than just how far you hit it.

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2020, 03:29:26 PM »
One tournament I’m familiar with is the Lehigh Valley Amateur in Bethlehem, PA. Held annually at Green Pond CC - 6400 Alec Findlay, essentially unchanged between my first playing in 1982 and some work done this spring. Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s a score of 78 give or take could get you into a playoff for the 15 open slots in the championship bracket. I co-medaled one year with 1-over 72. Now a 79 doesn’t guarantee a spot in the 63 open slots in the championship bracket (they switched from 6 16 man brackets to two 64 man brackets a while back). Also you regularly see people breaking par on the course in tournament play which used to be a rarity. The type of player in the field has been similar through time. Not sure if the players today are better, but there are certainly better scores being shot by comparable level amateurs on a comparable course.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2020, 05:58:51 PM »
When I was in my thirties I played competitive golf. I would play in the MD Amateur, the MD Open, and the Mid-Atlantic Open. I could qualify for match play in the Amateur by shooting something in the high 70's. If I shot 77-78 I could make the cut in the opens. Today I would be home for the weekend with those scores. Those scores might not even qualify for the championship flight in the club championship.

It just seems there are a lot of excellent players out there.


The short answer is, Yes, absolutely.


Longer answer is more complicated. When I took up golf in the early 90's, I was 20+ years old. I quickly caught the bug and was a "competitive" am in about three years. Back then, it was rare to see anyone better than about a +1. Nowadays, +1 is about the beginning of where you need to be to even consider seriously competing in a region like Southern California.


Most elite qualifiers in California (SCGA Am, California Am, U.S. Mid-Am) require a score of 1-over to 1-under in benign conditions (depending on conditions, of course), where, as one earlier poster mentioned, it used to be fairly common to qualify with scores in the 77 or 78 range. That still happens, but usually at senior events and/or at events when the conditions are extremely difficult (Rustic Canyon on a 30+ MPH wind day, for instance).


I'm 52, fat, horrible back spasms, and I carry the ball 225 off the tee, and I'm still a 0 to +1 and can sniff +2 if healthy. And I'm competitive still, on the right courses. There are just far more athletic, good golfers than there were years ago, and equipment has brought many courses to their knees. Par 5's that used to be Driver 3-wood or 2-iron for most players are now Driver, 8-iron for many.


I could go on on this subject for hours. Competitive amateur golf is my "thing." :-)

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2020, 05:59:35 PM »
If you live at home after college you should lose your amateur status.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2020, 06:10:44 PM »
If you live at home after college you should lose your amateur status.


LOLZ


I'm guessing you're also completely against "reinstated amateurs," John?


How about if you're a trust fund kid? Should you be able to be an amateur?

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2020, 06:19:20 PM »
Completely against is strong. Reinstatement is a case by case issue. I have a buddy that played in a couple of Masters and he got his status back. He just wanted to spend time with his friends playing in the Anderson Cup and such. I didn't have a problem with it.


I quit asking people what they do for a living when during a 36 hole final of a tournament I really wanted to win a guy told me nothing, never have, never will. He stole my prick card.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2020, 06:52:52 PM »
Completely against is strong. Reinstatement is a case by case issue. I have a buddy that played in a couple of Masters and he got his status back. He just wanted to spend time with his friends playing in the Anderson Cup and such. I didn't have a problem with it.


I quit asking people what they do for a living when during a 36 hole final of a tournament I really wanted to win a guy told me nothing, never have, never will. He stole my prick card.


Let's tee it soon, John. I'm at Victoria Club now. Played with Robert Ball the other day, believe you know him? We're both excited about restoring Victoria one day...

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2020, 07:22:18 PM »
That would be great. I had no idea you were so old or hit it so short.

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2020, 07:25:44 PM »
This short article about the number of scratch golfers in Munster (the southern province in Ireland) in 1981 is interesting:
https://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2017/1/16/munsters-top-golfers-from-four-scratch-men-in-1981-to-43-at-least-in-2016


The comments (including one from Ivan Morris who used to post here I believe) below the article are very relevant to this topic.


I recall hearing about 40 years ago, that there were just a handful of plus handicappers in the whole of Ireland (possibly could have been Adrian Morrow, Brian Hoey, Mark Gannon, Garth McGimpsey and Arthur Pierse).

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #42 on: June 04, 2020, 07:27:33 PM »
This short article about the number of scratch golfers in Munster (the southern province in Ireland) in 1981 is interesting:
https://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2017/1/16/munsters-top-golfers-from-four-scratch-men-in-1981-to-43-at-least-in-2016


The comments (including one from Ivan Morris who used to post here I believe) below the article are very relevant to this topic.


I recall hearing about 40 years ago, that there were just a handful of plus handicappers in the whole of Ireland (possibly could have been Adrian Morrow, Brian Hoey, Mark Gannon, Garth McGimpsey, Liam McNamara and Arthur Pierse).

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2020, 07:36:49 PM »
This short article about the number of scratch golfers in Munster (the southern province in Ireland) in 1981 is interesting:
https://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2017/1/16/munsters-top-golfers-from-four-scratch-men-in-1981-to-43-at-least-in-2016


The comments (including one from Ivan Morris who used to post here I believe) below the article are very relevant to this topic.


I recall hearing about 40 years ago, that there were just a handful of plus handicappers in the whole of Ireland (possibly could have been Adrian Morrow, Brian Hoey, Mark Gannon, Garth McGimpsey and Arthur Pierse).


Definitely a bit tougher to become a plus-capper in the old UK system, though, as they only use competition rounds in their formula, unless I'm mistaken. It's generally a given that a UK +1 is about a US +2.5 or so.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2020, 07:47:50 PM »
I still think it comes back to the opportunities/tools/resources available to the average joe to develop into a top notch amateur.  Its night and day different.

Kalen, you are absolutely correct.  There is a default setting among this group of Grumpy Old Men to attribute everything to equipment making the game easier and the world a lesser place, but I really don't think that has much to do with this. 

The vast majority of top notch amateurs started playing golf early in life, most of them in the junior program at a club.  That moves


Lots of truth there, but equipment plays a huge role in allowing kids to develop highly functional technique at a very young age.
Years ago kids were learning golf with stiff, heavy cut down steel shafts, making huge compromises in their speed creation and skill development. Now a kid can get a new set that fits every year reasonably affordably with US kids clubs,rather than continually havng to learn to adapt to ill fitted, heavy equipment-which lead to really bad habits.


Of course there are many other factors as I mentioned earlier (more people playing, more athletes taking interest,far better instruction, better programs,better physical conditioned players, better competitive events for juniors)


but there are also many ways to shoot a 74(as there always have been) and there are definitely more players than ever that can swat it out there 280-300 who have less skills in other areas(so far)but manage to be good enough to be low handicap to scratch despite being quite poor(not scratch) in many other areas of the game because they rarely have more than wedge into a green or a wood into a par 5. Translation-they would be far less likely to be scratch if they were facing more fairway woods and long and middle irons that they might've faced years ago on that same classic 6500 yard course they play now.(Many courses have gotten no longer)
Doesn't help them against their competition, but it sure helps them in relation to their handicaps on that same classic course.(throwing out the curent World handicap adjustment)


Then there's the fact that the equipment lengthens the competive span of a player by keeping older players competitive longer, and also the fact that the same 6400 yard course (that may not have changed-example Palmetto) allows older players to shoot scratch level scores for more years than they would've 30 -40 years ago with wood and steel.
To say nothing of the fact that young kids can compete with men at a younger age than ever with light , well fitted equipment(was always true with girls, but moreso now)
« Last Edit: June 04, 2020, 08:10:36 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2020, 08:03:55 PM »
Are there as many great gamblers now? Calcutta’s ain’t what they used to be.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2020, 08:08:32 PM »
Are there as many great gamblers now? Calcutta’s ain’t what they used to be.


Oh most definitely. You just need to go to the right clubs...  ;D

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2020, 08:30:02 PM »
The Old 4 handicap back in 1980 is the same as scratch in 2020.


That might be pretty close. I would quibble and say 2.5 to 3.0 in 1980 is scratch today, but there were no .x back then, just full numbers, I believe. :-)

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2020, 08:36:36 PM »
Slope wasn't universal until about 1990. It was a game changer. I played a course today that had a course rating of 70.3 and a slope of 145.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2020, 09:55:14 PM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are there more really good amateurs than there were 40 years ago?
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2020, 08:43:19 PM »
Slope was universal until about 1990. It was a game changer. I played a course today that had a course rating of 70.3 and a slope of 145.


Slope was a truly great invention. My previous home course (until a year ago) was ~7,180, 75.9/149. Was just super difficult in the fall and winter. Less so in the summer when the greens had to be kept wet in the inland SoCal heat.