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.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #100 on: August 15, 2011, 08:25:25 PM »
Come on A.G.

None of the current country club fairies have the cajones to throw a rubber snake at Nicklaus, and they cower in front of Tiger. How come it was the el-foldo tour for such a long time. Only old man Singh had the cajones to stand up to Tiger.


And Kalen, just because you and I don't have much inherent talent doesn't mean there aren't people that do. I don't know specifics on individuals, but I did read this week that Dufner didn't touch a club until he was 15. You sell way short what Lee Buck went through to get to the level he got to.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #101 on: August 15, 2011, 08:42:52 PM »
Come on A.G.

And Kalen, just because you and I don't have much inherent talent doesn't mean there aren't people that do. I don't know specifics on individuals, but I did read this week that Dufner didn't touch a club until he was 15. You sell way short what Lee Buck went through to get to the level he got to.

And guess what... Dufner has zero professional wins to show for it.

If he was around 40 years ago, he'd be an elite player with 6 majors, 20 tour wins,  and headed for the HOF!

Thanks for proving my point!!   ;D
« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 08:48:48 PM by Kalen Braley »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #102 on: August 15, 2011, 08:44:05 PM »
Come on A.G.

None of the current country club fairies have the cajones to throw a rubber snake at Nicklaus, and they cower in front of Tiger. How come it was the el-foldo tour for such a long time. Only old man Singh had the cajones to stand up to Tiger.


And Kalen, just because you and I don't have much inherent talent doesn't mean there aren't people that do. I don't know specifics on individuals, but I did read this week that Dufner didn't touch a club until he was 15. You sell way short what Lee Buck went through to get to the level he got to.


If there are 300 players now who can shoot 20 under at a tour site and 10 under at a major, and 25 who could do it in 1962, wouldn't simple math mean there will be less multiple winners today?
1/2 the tour had club jobs
almost all golf pros became golf pros because they weren't good at other sports (Nicklaus, Byrd, and a few others being the obvious exceptions)

Of course they choke now, they know they won't have a chance again next week because 300 of them want their spot.

The money today makes players want to work harder, not less.
How many players besides Hogan hit balls after playing in his day?

All that siad,I'm still calling Nicklaus the best player ever-so far.
"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

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #103 on: August 15, 2011, 08:55:48 PM »
Let's bring this discussion back to the aspects of the architecture that were winners this week. Is the crepe myrtle miniature tea garden on 18 a winner and if so, what did it beat?

Sam Morrow

Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #104 on: August 15, 2011, 10:51:40 PM »
I swear some of you guys can derail a thread, it's one helluva a circle jerk.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #105 on: August 15, 2011, 11:30:50 PM »
I watched the tournament on Sunday quite carefully, noting each of the hole descriptions, plus multiple angle views.  Here are my few thoughts.

1.  I had the sense that the course was designed mathematically, where bunkers, lakes and fairway widths were compared to a statistical analysis of the top golfer's ability.  "Let's make the carry here 285 yards, but encourage a 275 yard drive with a 10 yard fade", and so on.

2.  The leaderboard, more than anything, was populated by players with powerful, good golf swings.  Tiger's ballstriking has deteriorated; not good enough to will himself past the cut.  Dufner, Bradley, Hansen, Karlsson...those guys were swinging it real nice, and Keegan Bradley has a modern swing of enormous power.  He might be the real deal.

3.  I'm with George Pazin.  I think the competition is ten times greater than one generation ago.  In every big money sport, except perhaps baseball with its unbalanced revenue system, the parity and competition is unprecedented.

4.  Importing new sand in the same year was a big mistake.  Don't they know it takes a year or so for new sand to settle into place?  It probably didn't change the outcome, but it diminished the ability of great players to execute already difficult shots.

5.  I sensed less famous players populated the leaderboard because nobody, except for David Toms, knew the course well.  A new venue may eliminate the veteran's course knowledge that allows him to compete better.

6.  Overall, I thought the bunkers were more functional than aesthetic.  Hazards are best served aesthetically.

Visually undistinguished at best, difficult with minimal charm, huge swaths of fluffy, unavoidable sand.  Too hard.  In the long run, who cares whether the course made for a good TV show for four days?  Just like Charl Schwartzel, I hope Keegan Bradley wins again.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #106 on: August 16, 2011, 12:39:29 AM »
Come on A.G.

None of the current country club fairies have the cajones to throw a rubber snake at Nicklaus, and they cower in front of Tiger. How come it was the el-foldo tour for such a long time. Only old man Singh had the cajones to stand up to Tiger.


And Kalen, just because you and I don't have much inherent talent doesn't mean there aren't people that do. I don't know specifics on individuals, but I did read this week that Dufner didn't touch a club until he was 15. You sell way short what Lee Buck went through to get to the level he got to.


If there are 300 players now who can shoot 20 under at a tour site and 10 under at a major, and 25 who could do it in 1962, wouldn't simple math mean there will be less multiple winners today?
1/2 the tour had club jobs
almost all golf pros became golf pros because they weren't good at other sports (Nicklaus, Byrd, and a few others being the obvious exceptions)

Of course they choke now, they know they won't have a chance again next week because 300 of them want their spot.

The money today makes players want to work harder, not less.
How many players besides Hogan hit balls after playing in his day?

All that siad,I'm still calling Nicklaus the best player ever-so far.

Jeff,

I think you are forgetting a few things. In 1962, the ball weren't even very round. The balls spun like crazy off these little clubs they used to call 1 woods. The greens were a mess compared to now. There was no such thing as a hybrid, and the players were hitting balls with butter knives and making them sing and dance too.

All that said, I'm calling Nicklaus the best player ever-so far.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #107 on: August 16, 2011, 09:49:23 AM »
George:

Also posted on the other thread.....

How, exactly, are:

Bob Charles, Dave Marr, Tony Lema, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, Don January, Orville Moody, Charles Coody, Tommy Aaron, Tom Weiskopf, and Lou Graham -- major winners all, from 1963 through 1975 (Jack's dominant period as a player) -- that much different than:

...Justin Leonard, Paul Lawrie, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, , Todd Hamilton, Mike Weir, Zach Johnson, Michael Campbell and Trevor Immelman, all major winners from 1997 through 2008 (Tiger's dominant period as a player)?

More seriously this time:

Looking quickly at the results of the above, what jumps out at me is how many victories besides majors the earlier guys racked up, versus the relatively one hit wonders in the more recent group. Again, you can read that two ways: 1) the guys today can't win or 2) there are far more guys who can win, so they all win at a smaller rate overall.


George (I stayed up all night doing this ;D):

Of the golfers from the Jack era I listed, they had 85 PGA Tour wins combined (I included in that total the 4 Euro Tour wins by Charles). That's an average of 7.7 wins per golfer.

Of the golfers from the Tiger era I listed, they have 70 PGA Tour wins combined (I included in that total 18 Euro Tour wins -- 6 by Lawrie, 8 by Campbell, and 4 by Immelman). That's an average of 6.4 wins per golfer.

If you add in the two best golfers from each era I didn't list who won a single major (De Vincenzo and Love III), the average win ratio moves to 8.5 wins during Jack's era, to 7.5 wins during Jack's era. And, of course, the numbers skew low for Tiger's era, as the Jack-era golfers can't win anymore on Tour, while there is a very good chance the 11 golfers I listed from Tiger's era will win more on Tour.

I don't think there's much of an argument that the one-time major winners from Jack's era were more accustomed to winning than the one-time major winners from Tiger's era. The difference in career wins is about 1 tournament per golfer.

I'd still hold to my argument that the very best of Jack's competition was able to find a way to win multiple majors, in a way that the very best of Tiger's era has not. Jack faced stiffer competition, at the very top of the game, and just as much depth as Tiger has during his best years.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 09:54:09 AM by Phil McDade »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #108 on: August 16, 2011, 09:59:44 AM »
Phil,

So if I interpret these results right...are you claiming that a guy who has averaged 7.7 wins over his career is a much more formidable player than one who has averaged 6.4 wins?  Or 8.5 to 7.5 for that matter?

If a guy wins 6.4 to 7.5 times against world class fields...I'm pretty sure he knows how to get it done.  The difference between those numbers are practically a wash.

I would take this a step further and say that a guy who can win against a field where 100+ guys have the ability to win ...is much more meaningful than a guy who wins against a field with only 20-30 actual contenders.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #109 on: August 16, 2011, 10:08:41 AM »
Kalen:

Here's my argument -- where is the actual evidence (Crockett, Pazin, others...) that Tiger's faced deeper fields? George seems to make the argument that Tiger is facing deeper fields, because the one-time major winners from Jack's era (my listings in the initial post were deliberately one-time major winners from both eras) "racked up" more wins than the "one-hit wonders" from Tiger's era. I'd suggest, strongly, that both eras had a combination of one-hit wonders (Moody won once on Tour -- the '69 US Open, as has Micheel -- the '03 PGA) and golfers who had solid, successful careers yet only one major (Weiskopf, January and Brewer combined for 36 wins on Tour; Toms, Leonard, and Weir have combined for 33 wins on Tour). There's little evidence that I can discern that the quality of golfers who won a single major during Tiger's era is any different than the quality of players who won a single major during Jack's era.

But there is one notable difference between the two eras -- Jack faced much better competition from the likes of Player and Trevino than Tiger ever has.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #110 on: August 16, 2011, 10:19:02 AM »
...
I would take this a step further and say that a guy who can win against a field where 100+ guys have the ability to win ...is much more meaningful than a guy who wins against a field with only 20-30 actual contenders.

This 20-30 actual contenders is a bunch of bull. Phil's stats essentially say there are a lot of actual contenders, because the number of wins by the best players is low. Which part of 7.7 vs 6.4 skewed in favor of the 6.4 didn't you understand?

On the modern PGA Tour, you have a good week at Q-school you get a card to the club. In the previous era you had to show up and qualify each week to get into the show. You didn't have the luxury of sitting back on one weeks result and collecting pay checks for a year. The PGA has finally begun to realize they had a weak system going and are beginning to transition to emphasizing the minor tour more.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #111 on: August 16, 2011, 10:22:21 AM »
Sam, perhaps you could respond to Dave Moriarty's post if you'd like more course discussion.

George (I stayed up all night doing this ;D):

Of the golfers from the Jack era I listed, they had 85 PGA Tour wins combined (I included in that total the 4 Euro Tour wins by Charles). That's an average of 7.7 wins per golfer.

Of the golfers from the Tiger era I listed, they have 70 PGA Tour wins combined (I included in that total 18 Euro Tour wins -- 6 by Lawrie, 8 by Campbell, and 4 by Immelman). That's an average of 6.4 wins per golfer.

If you add in the two best golfers from each era I didn't list who won a single major (De Vincenzo and Love III), the average win ratio moves to 8.5 wins during Jack's era, to 7.5 wins during Jack's era. And, of course, the numbers skew low for Tiger's era, as the Jack-era golfers can't win anymore on Tour, while there is a very good chance the 11 golfers I listed from Tiger's era will win more on Tour.

I don't think there's much of an argument that the one-time major winners from Jack's era were more accustomed to winning than the one-time major winners from Tiger's era. The difference in career wins is about 1 tournament per golfer.

I'd still hold to my argument that the very best of Jack's competition was able to find a way to win multiple majors, in a way that the very best of Tiger's era has not. Jack faced stiffer competition, at the very top of the game, and just as much depth as Tiger has during his best years.

I will take your word for it on the numbers, though I'm surprised to see those numbers. When I responded yesterday, I had just done quick wikipedia searches on Charles, Lema, Marr, Moody & January. Lema alone showed 19 pro wins (and he died at 32, clearly he would have won more and was the outlier in the group) and Moody showed 25; that's 44 with just 2 guys (guess wiki is wrong, what a shock). I just went from memory on the current guys and didn't think any had more than 3 or 4 wins, save Leonard. I'm shocked to learn Campbell has 8 (are you counting Hooters Tour wins :)).

I've been thinking a lot about this stuff and I think what makes golf so difficult to analyze statistically is the rarity with which anyone, even the best players, win. It's not like tennis, where the best guys can dominate, and it's sure not like team sports, which tend to use other stats (batting averages, scoring, rushing yards, etc) as performance metrics. It's the same problem we run into when analyzing the player world ranking systems, or comparing the US Tour to the Euro Tour - there's no good way of assessing the performance of the also rans.

So we're left with a lot of subjective measures. And we're not going to resolve those any time soon, I think, though we will enjoy arguing about them!

P.S. Lee's comment is just a funny quip, nothing more. It doesn't yield the insight into his gritty character that many seem to think, not any more than Floyd's steely glare (too bad Matt's gone, coulda dragged him in with that one...). When the best golfer (by most people's standards) grew up playing country club golf 24/7, the gritty upbringing theory loses all lustre, to me anyway.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #112 on: August 16, 2011, 10:28:34 AM »


So we're left with a lot of subjective measures. And we're not going to resolve those any time soon, I think, though we will enjoy arguing about them!




I'll return the compliment (I think)--this is a good comment on which to end this thread.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #113 on: August 16, 2011, 10:48:57 AM »
George:

Moody had a very successful pro career -- it's just that most of it occured on the Seniors Tour. And you're right about Lema -- he certainly would've won more. I counted only two tours -- PGA and Euro (which has clearly become more attractive financially for European-based players to play than it was during Jack's era).

One other thing -- the Tour now is longer than it was during Jack's era, with more opportunities for players to win tournaments.

I was also struck in my research just how similar the career paths and accomplishments are of players from each era -- Furyk has won 16 times on Tour, including four tournaments in October, or not all that different than the career of George Archer, who won 12 times on a Tour that essentially ended not long after the PGA in August. Geoff Ogilvy has won 7 times on Tour, not all that different than Lou Graham's six wins.

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #114 on: August 16, 2011, 11:31:57 AM »

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #115 on: August 16, 2011, 12:10:47 PM »
George , you mentioned how hard it is to win at golf...which makes me wonder exactly why TW got rid of Haney when he won 50%!!!!!!!!! of his starts over a 3 year period with him, i think

that is mind boggling
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2011, 12:25:40 PM »


Glad to see someone else admires that tree garden as much as I do.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #117 on: August 16, 2011, 12:26:19 PM »
Phil,

I think you are right on one and done fluke winners.  Thats always going to happen IMO, so I would agree that happened just as much in Jacks era.  At this point, I would have to base my opinions on what guys like Jack, Arnie, and Trevino have said themselves and admitted that fields back then weren't near as deep as they are now.

So by default, when fields aren't as deep, then by pure mathematical reasoning, you're going to have a small amount of guys winning the majority of the tournaments.  And when fields are deeper, its going to be more spread out.  And I think that is playing out now with all the recent 1st time major winners in the last few years.

Garland,

Q School and Monday Qualifying really is a red herring.  The facts bear out that these guys don't have much impact on the tour....especially when compared to the 125 top guys who return from the previous year and the top 25 guys from the Nationwide tour.  But I would assert as other have that because there are so many tours out there, and the money is so compelling at the top levels, not only due to purses, but also big $$ sponsorships...that these guys are more competitive than even in making it to the big stage.


PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2011, 12:44:41 PM »
Kalen - re the top 125...i think that should be cut back to the top 100 ...why exactly it went from 60 to more than double (125) I dont know

I think McCord, marginal player that he was, was one of the biggest forces getting it thru, if i remember correctly
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #119 on: August 16, 2011, 12:54:48 PM »
Kalen - re the top 125...i think that should be cut back to the top 100 ...why exactly it went from 60 to more than double (125) I dont know

I think McCord, marginal player that he was, was one of the biggest forces getting it thru, if i remember correctly

McCord was head of the PGA player's association who pushed for it, and it was because he was a marginal player that he lobbied for the all-exempt tour, which is now the top-125.  The all-exempt Tour essentially did away with Monday qualifying (which still exists for some tournaments, but it's on the margins now).

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #120 on: August 16, 2011, 12:58:48 PM »
I watched the tournament on Sunday quite carefully, noting each of the hole descriptions, plus multiple angle views.  Here are my few thoughts.

..............................

4.  Importing new sand in the same year was a big mistake.  Don't they know it takes a year or so for new sand to settle into place?  It probably didn't change the outcome, but it diminished the ability of great players to execute already difficult shots.

..............................



John,

Do you really think that this was a mistake.  I thought it looked more like a planned attempt to make the bunkers more penal.  

The normal tour setup with packed, settled sand apparently doesn't require that much talent.  The players all seem to extract themselves from bunkers very easily most of the time.

The way these bunkers were set up, they were to be avoided.  That had to make the players think.  There were no cries of get in the bunker on this course.  On the other hand, if the choice is between water and bunkers, I guess the bunkers were a better bail out, even with their difficulties.  The combination of bunkers and water may have been a bit much.


PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #121 on: August 16, 2011, 01:04:18 PM »
Kalen - re the top 125...i think that should be cut back to the top 100 ...why exactly it went from 60 to more than double (125) I dont know

I think McCord, marginal player that he was, was one of the biggest forces getting it thru, if i remember correctly

McCord was head of the PGA player's association who pushed for it, and it was because he was a marginal player that he lobbied for the all-exempt tour, which is now the top-125.  The all-exempt Tour essentially did away with Monday qualifying (which still exists for some tournaments, but it's on the margins now).

I wonder why Beman agreed with such a large increase from 60-125 Phil...a really bad move imho
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #122 on: August 16, 2011, 01:04:30 PM »
Kalen - re the top 125...i think that should be cut back to the top 100 ...why exactly it went from 60 to more than double (125) I dont know

I think McCord, marginal player that he was, was one of the biggest forces getting it thru, if i remember correctly

Paul,

That may very well be.  But it still doesn't change the fact that guys who get thier cards thru Q school rarely have any meaningful impact on tour.  The impact players come from tour card keepers and guys on the nationwide who play well thru the year to get the bump up.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #123 on: August 16, 2011, 01:06:00 PM »
I am the elder. I not only speak of floppy disks, I speak of magnetic core memory.

The current generation is all soft!
 :P
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week
« Reply #124 on: August 16, 2011, 01:15:11 PM »
FWIW, runners up to Tiger and Jack in majors:

Tiger:
Tom Kite
Sergio Garcia
Ernie Els, Miguel Angel Jiminez
Thomas Bjorn, Ernie Els
Bob May
David Duval
Retief Goosen
Phil Mickelson
Chris DeMarco
Shaun Micheel
Woody Austin
Rocco Mediate

Nicklaus:
Arnold Palmer
Tony Lema
Dave Ragan
Arnold Palmer, Gary Player
Gay Brewer, Tommy Jacobs
Doug Sanders, Dave Thomas
Arnold Palmer
Doug Sanders
Billy Casper
Bruce Crampton, Bobby Mitchell, Tom Weiskopf
Bruce Crampton
Bruce Crampton
Tom Weiskoph, Johnny Miller
Bruce Crampton
Ben Crenshaw, Raymond Floyd, Tom Kite, Simon Owen
Isao Aoki
Andy Bean
Tom Kite, Greg Norman

Any conclusions (other than it sucked to be Bruce Crampton)?

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....