Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?

« **Reply #50 on:** January 30, 2008, 12:48:27 PM »

Huck now seems to be arguing that only children who grow up in warm climates can go to the top of the game. I think the winter break is one reason so many great golfers come from regions of surprise and so few from states like Arizona.

« **Reply #51 on:** January 30, 2008, 12:55:11 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 12:48:27 PM

Huck now seems to be arguing that only children who grow up in warm climates can go to the top of the game. I think the winter break is one reason so many great golfers come from regions of surprise and so few from states like Arizona.

And just where in the hell did I make that argument in any way shape or form? In fact I believe the problem is that tournaments occur year-round - and thus in warm-weather places - making it that much tougher for those who do NOT live there.

« **Reply #52 on:** January 30, 2008, 12:55:54 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 12:48:27 PM

Huck now seems to be arguing that only children who grow up in warm climates can go to the top of the game. I think the winter break is one reason so many great golfers come from regions of surprise and so few from states like Arizona.

John,

I am with you, it seems that we always hear about Christo Greyling, Anna K and all of the other GREAT players that are coming from Bradenton, but they never seem to live up to the hype, when it comes to winning big-time titles. It appears that the pressure gets to them by that age and the drive is somewhat deteriorated. Zach Johnson is a good example for the other side. Ben Curtis as well.

Oh, sorry TH.

« **Reply #53 on:** January 30, 2008, 12:58:25 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 12:55:11 PM

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 12:48:27 PM
Huck now seems to be arguing that only children who grow up in warm climates can go to the top of the game. I think the winter break is one reason so many great golfers come from regions of surprise and so few from states like Arizona.

And just where in the hell did I make that argument in any way shape or form? In fact I believe the problem is that tournaments occur year-round - and thus in warm-weather places - making it that much tougher for those who do NOT live there.

Aren't you saying what John accused you of, by saying this?

« **Reply #54 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:03:40 PM »

You guys are losing me.

I believe that what has seem to become the required system for getting to the top is the academy / national tour route. Again, I don't necessarily think it's the best way, nor the right way - I'm just saying that's the way it is.

If one lives nearer to the areas these occur, it's of course easier. But many don't live in these areas and still try to make it a go - thus the added expense and time commitment.

And thus my argument that it's beyond the reach of "everyman" as I define such.

So no, I never said - nor do I believe - that only kids who live in warm weather areas can make it to the top. Far, far from it.

What I do believe is that as time goes on, only those with large financial means and strict devotion to golf will be the ones who make it.

Clearer?

« **Reply #55 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:16:15 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 01:03:40 PM

You guys are losing me.

I believe that what has seem to become the required system for getting to the top is the academy / national tour route. Again, I don't necessarily think it's the best way, nor the right way - I'm just saying that's the way it is.

If one lives nearer to the areas these occur, it's of course easier. But many don't live in these areas and still try to make it a go - thus the added expense and time commitment.

And thus my argument that it's beyond the reach of "everyman" as I define such.

So no, I never said - nor do I believe - that only kids who live in warm weather areas can make it to the top. Far, far from it.

What I do believe is that as time goes on, only those with large financial means and strict devotion to golf will be the ones who make it.

Clearer?

Crystal, just don't see it that way, especially the last part.

« **Reply #56 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:19:22 PM »

Don't girls in bikinis year round balance out the advantage of living in those states? It is one thing to have blinkers on in Ohio and work on your craft year round, but isn't that impossible to do in the warm places??

« **Reply #57 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:30:47 PM »

Huck believes that all children are born equal and only the size of their parents bank accounts can lead them to greatness.

« **Reply #58 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:35:56 PM »

Man is my son screwed.

« **Reply #59 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:36:29 PM »

I've read the title of this thread 7 times and I still can't make any sense out of it, grammatically or otherwise.

« **Reply #60 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:40:17 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 01:30:47 PM

Huck believes that all children are born equal and only the size of their parents bank accounts can lead them to greatness.

LOL
Now I know you're just been the "provocative" participant that you so do excel at.

Obviously I don't believe any of that.

I do believe exactly what I posted. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. You're great at that also.

Glenn: fair enough - we'll see how this shakes down. Maybe in the end you will be correct and the ones who overcome all of this will be the BEST. That makes sense to me. But rank and file tour pros - you could call them the top of the profession as well - will come up via these ranks darn near exclusively as time goes on... I think. We shall see.

TH

« **Reply #61 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:51:09 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 10:50:51 AM

I believe that it can be proven that as an arena grows smaller the advantage goes to the larger opponent. We then need a balance of improved equipment to meet the perfect mix. I think golf has stumbled onto this mix quite by accident and now we need to support it.

John,

Is your point that the evolution of equipment and courses has kept the playing field level as between normal and oversized people, and had this evolution not incurred top players would generally be larger than in point of fact they are? It's an interesting theory.

All this stuff about early specialization and needing money to succeed has nothing to with your original point, does it?

« **Reply #62 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:53:33 PM »

Phil - he's changed his point several times. All this stuff about early specialization and needing money to succeed is part of my arguing against a central premise of what seemed to be his original point - and that is that golf is unique is that access to the top levels in within the reach of the everyman - it's outside of the reach of the everyman in other sports.

Parsing his points is dangerous business though.... good luck!

« **Reply #63 on:** January 30, 2008, 01:57:00 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 11:37:59 AM

JES,

I don't think it was very sporting of you to ask for you amateur status back. I have always found that to be distasteful.

Well then, we'll put you and Rich Goodale in a boat together and see if anyone cares...

« **Reply #64 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:26:21 PM »

shivas:

Agreed re the end. Disagree re the means.

It's not NEW, for sure. It's just a hell of a lot more widespread. Events occur year-round now.

And I truly believe they've become so much bigger, and so much more widespread, that they are overwhelming the other ways to get noticed. I truly believe if a junior player is not ranked on the AJGA tour, he will be looked at as damaged goods, if he is looked at at all.

Thus the difference today. It was not that way before. There were no rankings, at least not on the up to the moment, reported in GolfWeek and on the internet scale that exists today.

TH

« **Reply #65 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:39:59 PM »

My understanding is that the US Junior and AJGA events are about all that matters to a Division 1 college coach...

« **Reply #66 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:41:56 PM »

Quote from: JES II on January 30, 2008, 02:39:59 PM

My understanding is that the US Junior and AJGA events are about all that matters to a Division 1 college coach...

That's my understanding as well - that's ALL they look at.

Times have changed in this respect.

TH

« **Reply #67 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:53:43 PM »

Quote from: Phil Benedict on January 30, 2008, 01:51:09 PM

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 10:50:51 AM

I believe that it can be proven that as an arena grows smaller the advantage goes to the larger opponent. We then need a balance of improved equipment to meet the perfect mix. I think golf has stumbled onto this mix quite by accident and now we need to support it.

John,

Is your point that the evolution of equipment and courses has kept the playing field level as between normal and oversized people, and had this evolution not incurred top players would generally be larger than in point of fact they are? It's an interesting theory.

All this stuff about early specialization and needing money to succeed has nothing to with your original point, does it?

Yes this is my exact theory that I set out to prove as it is architecturally based. If courses were still 6400 yds and we played with balata and persimmon only the biggest and strongest players would advance. The game would resemble baseball of just a few years back where behemoths would drive every green and the game would be done. One of golfs most lucky of accidents is how the optimization of equipment has taken the need for strength out of the game. Much like a car of 600 hp only goes a few miles and hour faster than one of 300 hp because of areodynamic limits the modern golf ball and club has devalued strength over percision. It is quite the opposite reaction common sense may have dictated. This is also the reason longer courses test a greater spread of talent than shorter courses...The few yards strength is now worth get lost in the longer yardages.

« **Reply #68 on:** January 30, 2008, 02:59:31 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 01:03:40 PM

What I do believe is that as time goes on, only those with large financial means and strict devotion to golf will be the ones who make it.

If I read Mr. Huckster's quote above, it just seems to me that the only objection I have to it is the word "only." The hunger that has been mentioned before on this thread is a real wild card. Sometimes it's a lack of money that helps create that hunger, as Lee Trevino might tell you. There's also natural talent. See the amazing stories about Tiger and JN at young ages. Natural talent and inner drive aren't at all the sole province of the wealthy. Money may give many people a big leg up in the game, but $$$ gives a person a head start in a lot of arenas, not just golf.

And I gotta say, being oversized hasn't been much help to MY game. Maybe I'm just oversized in the wrong places.

« **Reply #69 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:02:04 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 02:53:43 PM

Quote from: Phil Benedict on January 30, 2008, 01:51:09 PM
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 10:50:51 AM

I believe that it can be proven that as an arena grows smaller the advantage goes to the larger opponent. We then need a balance of improved equipment to meet the perfect mix. I think golf has stumbled onto this mix quite by accident and now we need to support it.

John,

Is your point that the evolution of equipment and courses has kept the playing field level as between normal and oversized people, and had this evolution not incurred top players would generally be larger than in point of fact they are? It's an interesting theory.

All this stuff about early specialization and needing money to succeed has nothing to with your original point, does it?

Yes this is my exact theory that I set out to prove as it is architecturally based. If courses were still 6400 yds and we played with balata and persimmon only the biggest and strongest players would advance. The game would resemble baseball of just a few years back where behemoths would drive every green and the game would be done. One of golfs most lucky of accidents is how the optimization of equipment has taken the need for strength out of the game. Much like a car of 600 hp only goes a few miles and hour faster than one of 300 hp because of areodynamic limits the modern golf ball and club has devalued strength over percision. It is quite the opposite reaction common sense may have dictated. This is also the reason longer courses test a greater spread of talent than shorter courses...The few yards strength is now worth get lost in the longer yardages.

JK:

Now THAT is an interesting argument. Well done leaving out the crap about the "everyman."

Oh, and you're welcome.

TH

« **Reply #70 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:02:05 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on January 30, 2008, 12:10:57 PM

I thought Jack was All City or All State in basketball? Regardless, with your other examples, I think you're almost making Huck's point - those guys are all older.

Golf's no different than anything else - if you want to be successful on a national scale, you have to specialize. I don't care if you're an athlete, an artist, an entrepreneur, a scientist, pretty much anything. You can be well-rounded, certainly, but you will not likely be a big-time success without concentrating on one thing.

This year's projected #1 pick in the NHL draft, Steven Stamkos has won provincial championships in 4 different sports: soccer, lacrosse, baseball and hockey.

It's nice to see a throwback once in awhile.

There have also been a lot of NHLers that have been top lacrosse players. Joe Nieuwendyk is one. Although I will grant you there are similarities between the two games.

Of course this has nothing to do with John's original post.

« **Reply #71 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:04:07 PM »

Quote from: Kirk Gill on January 30, 2008, 02:59:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 01:03:40 PM
What I do believe is that as time goes on, only those with large financial means and strict devotion to golf will be the ones who make it.

If I read Mr. Huckster's quote above, it just seems to me that the only objection I have to it is the word "only." The hunger that has been mentioned before on this thread is a real wild card. Sometimes it's a lack of money that helps create that hunger, as Lee Trevino might tell you. There's also natural talent. See the amazing stories about Tiger and JN at young ages. Natural talent and inner drive aren't at all the sole province of the wealthy. Money may give many people a big leg up in the game, but $$$ gives a person a head start in a lot of arenas, not just golf.

And I gotta say, being oversized hasn't been much help to MY game. Maybe I'm just oversized in the wrong places.

Kirk - agreed, "only" takes it too far. Change this to:

What I do believe is that as time goes on, damn near all who do make it to the top will have large financial means and strict devotion to golf. There will always be exceptions.

« **Reply #72 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:08:07 PM »

"25 years ago few knew the whole truth. Just look at the swings rated "excellent"; Jerry Pate's triple shift, reverse "C" comes to mind. The top pro's of the day rated his swing 95 out of 100. Only Jimmy Ballard predicted his future." T. Ristola
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony,

I am a bit dull this morning. Would you please explain? Did Ballard think Pate's swing was not technically sound and that he would experience numerous physical problems probably as a result of faulty mechanics?

I saw Pate shoot the easiest 68 during the NCAA finals in the mid-70s at Ohio State. A low, single-digit handicapper, I played a day or so after the tournament and shot something in the low to mid 80s. The huge disparity between the real players and the wanna-bes couldn't have been clearer.

I am not sure what JohnK is posing, or that whatever it is, he really means it. Perhaps we are all looking at the past nostalgically. In Arlington, TX during the 80's and 90's, there were many more problems with too many activities available to the kids than too few. What I am hearing from young parents today is that nothing has changed, other than there are even more activities and disttractions for the kids.

As to technology and "the field changing", to the chagrin of some here, the game has tried to keep up with consumer demands. According to the other thread on slow growth threatening the future of the game, apparently not enough has been done. Personally, I think the technology threat is vastly overstated, both in terms of suggested enhanced performance as well as costs (equipment and green fees) and slower play.

JK,

Would basketball be a better game if the court boundaries were expanded and the basket was raised a couple of feet? How about baseball? Add 10% to all the dimensions? Would golf do better to require a single tournament ball and a highly specific, relatively uniform set of club standards?

« **Reply #73 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:16:57 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 03:04:07 PM

Quote from: Kirk Gill on January 30, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 01:03:40 PM
What I do believe is that as time goes on, only those with large financial means and strict devotion to golf will be the ones who make it.

If I read Mr. Huckster's quote above, it just seems to me that the only objection I have to it is the word "only." The hunger that has been mentioned before on this thread is a real wild card. Sometimes it's a lack of money that helps create that hunger, as Lee Trevino might tell you. There's also natural talent. See the amazing stories about Tiger and JN at young ages. Natural talent and inner drive aren't at all the sole province of the wealthy. Money may give many people a big leg up in the game, but $$$ gives a person a head start in a lot of arenas, not just golf.

And I gotta say, being oversized hasn't been much help to MY game. Maybe I'm just oversized in the wrong places.

Kirk - agreed, "only" takes it too far. Change this to:

What I do believe is that as time goes on, damn near all who do make it to the top will have large financial means and strict devotion to golf. There will always be exceptions.

TH,

I am not trying to be difficult and I understand why you could potentially see this as the case, but what evidence is there?

I can't think of a "silver spooner" that has risen to the top. Not one. Davis Love had everything you could ask for, golf-wise, and he won one major. Look at the Floyd kids, Trevino, the Nicklaus kids. Nothing. I see it going the other way, better athletes with more hunger will make it to the Tour. Angel Cabrera types. No?

« **Reply #74 on:** January 30, 2008, 03:19:09 PM »

"Yes this is my exact theory that I set out to prove as it is architecturally based"

I don't think the theory holds, John, either logically or in practice. Logically, because what amounts to an ever-increasing emphasis on length can lead only to a situation in which the biggest and/or strongest must prevail; in practice, because the emphasis on length will always be coupled with an enhanced use of rough, which again favours the biggest and/or strongest.

It is the VARIETY of golf's non-standardized fields of play that keeps the regular folks dreaming of a chance.

Peter

News:

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

Glenn Spencer

Glenn Spencer

Tom Huckaby

Glenn Spencer

Glenn Spencer

John Kavanaugh

George Pazin

Michael Powers

Tom Huckaby

Phil Benedict

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

John Kavanaugh

Kirk Gill

Tom Huckaby

Paul Stephenson

Tom Huckaby

Lou_Duran

Glenn Spencer

Peter Pallotta