62

[Tom_Doak]

Garland, that same logic applies then to Jack.

Yes, and no.


Just because there are 5x as many players capable of shooting a very low score, does not mean there are 5x as many players capable of winning a major championship.  Certainly, there are more now than there were in the 1970's, but certainly not 5x more.


[A quick rundown of the stats:  in Nicklaus' prime 1962-86 there were 46 different major champions.  In the last 25 years there have been 59.  If there was a complete list of "top tens" I suspect there would be between 2x and 3x as many different names in the modern era, but not everyone who finishes in the top ten "could have won".]


Also, to Garland's previous post, it's weird to say that Johnny Miller "benefits from the difficulty of using the equipment of his era to compete".  Yes, today's equipment is more of a leveler ... but all the more kudos to a player who could shoot a really low # with the old stuff.

[George Pazin]

PGA Tour courses are never fiery-so there's really no difference when it rains.

That certainly doesn't match my limited viewing. I get the first part, but when it rains, virtually every course in the world is susceptible to the 59 watch. That's the first thing I look at, whenever PGA Tour scores are crazy low any particular week - is it wet? Is it cue ball in hand?


Plenty of stray 63s to be had most any week, but seems like the field averages during wet weeks is just silly.


P.S. Didn't Roy McAvoy shoot 62 in the US Open some 20 years ago? Rings a bell...

[Garland Bayley]

...
Also, to Garland's previous post, it's weird to say that Johnny Miller "benefits from the difficulty of using the equipment of his era to compete".  Yes, today's equipment is more of a leveler ... but all the more kudos to a player who could shoot a really low # with the old stuff.

The point being that Johnny Miller was so on that he accomplished what he did. Being a tiny bit off with that equipment meant you shot 70. Whereas, you have to be really on to shoot 62 with today's equipment, but being a tiny bit off means you shoot 65 instead. Being a tiny bit off with the old ball meant it went much farther off line than it does with the modern ball.

My point was not that there are 5x times as many people capable of winning a major championship. It was that there are 5x times as many people capable of going low on any given day. I guess we a just plain lucky that Mr. 59 doesn't do golf commentary so we have to listen to him disparage every modern day 59, and gasp 58.

But, there was one Mr. 59 for a long long time, and then the equipment revolution came, sigh.

[Ruediger Meyer]

It was overdue. It has been 44 years since the first 63. I checked every result of (current) Majors and that is the longest time between record rounds ever. There was a time when a new record was set every few hours - literally. So don't expect to wait till 2061 for the next record. I would expect it within two or three years.

[Jim Nugent]

Garland, that same logic applies then to Jack.

Yes, and no.


Just because there are 5x as many players capable of shooting a very low score, does not mean there are 5x as many players capable of winning a major championship.  Certainly, there are more now than there were in the 1970's, but certainly not 5x more.


[A quick rundown of the stats:  in Nicklaus' prime 1962-86 there were 46 different major champions.  In the last 25 years there have been 59.  If there was a complete list of "top tens" I suspect there would be between 2x and 3x as many different names in the modern era, but not everyone who finishes in the top ten "could have won".]

In his last post, Garland modified what he said in his original post.  He originally said now there are five times as many players who can play as well as there were in Johnny's time.  That to me means five times as many capable of winning, not just going low on any particular day.  That would really dilute Jack's accomplishments, and it seems to me everyone else from his era or earlier.   

I agree that the competition has gotten better, but doubt there are five times as many top-notch players now compared to 40 or 50 years ago. 

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

You continue to misconstrue what I mean. Since there can only be one winner in each tournament, and 156 people that can shoot a low score in that tournament, I at no time intended for people to think I was talking about winners, but instead about the possibility of low scores. Furthermore, I am not saying there are 5x as many good players. I am saying that the equipment has enable 5x as many players to shoot low scores. It is easier to maintain scoring averages of tour pros with the new equipment, so the skill level does not necessarily need to be there. With the spinless ball, it is far easier to keep the ball in play and go low.

[Mike Wagner]

Jim,

You continue to misconstrue what I mean. Since there can only be one winner in each tournament, and 156 people that can shoot a low score in that tournament, I at no time intended for people to think I was talking about winners, but instead about the possibility of low scores. Furthermore, I am not saying there are 5x as many good players. I am saying that the equipment has enable 5x as many players to shoot low scores. It is easier to maintain scoring averages of tour pros with the new equipment, so the skill level does not necessarily need to be there. With the spinless ball, it is far easier to keep the ball in play and go low.

I don't think you understand how good tour players really are.

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

Can you explain why Wikipedia lists 30 of 35 professional tournament scores of 58 & 59 to be in the era of the multi piece ball? In the era of lengthened golf courses? Is it because I just don't understand how bad professional golfers used to be?

[George Pazin]

The nature of golf is such that it doesn't lend itself to simple statistical analysis, as is often offered on here.


There are a limited number of events, and very few meaningful events (ie majors), compared with the number of pro golfers out there. When you add in the statistical dominators (Jack, Tiger, etc), you can't meaningfully compare across eras. There simply aren't enough samples.


Simplistically, if Tiger plays 20 years, with 4 majors each year, and wins 14, that only leaves 66 other majors to be won. You can't have 5x as many different major champions among the rest - there aren't enough events! And one other great player - oh, let's call him Phil or Tom - can completely skew the "other guys capable of winning a major, as evidenced by other guys winning a major" evidence offered.


Someone with more time on his hands might be able to compare the relative rankings of the guys who won - in other words, coming up with some sort of average ranking of the guys who win majors. If it was 15 during Jack's time and 50 during Tiger's, that would imply a lot more guys capable of winning majors.


But that depends on accurate rankings for those other guys, and I doubt that really exists.


In the end, people believe what they want to believe.


And anyone who believes the fields during Jack's time were anywhere remotely close to the fields during Tiger's time is simply delusional and trapped in that great coping mechanism, denial.


 


And anyone who believes the fields during Tiger's time will compare to the fields of the next Tiger, in 10-20-30 years, is equally delusional...


Likewise, there is a lower bound to how low you can go, so all those discussions about 58s, 59s, 62s, 63s, well, they all have to be assessed individually as well. And that doesn't even take into account weather, course set up, etc, etc.


Maybe Brent Hutto could explain it better to everyone, if he still posted on here....

[Wayne_Kozun]

Has anyone calculated the Z score (or how many standard deviations from the mean) that Grace's score was vs Miller's?  That should give a pretty good indication of which round was more of an outlier - my intuition would tell me that Miller's was better.  Are the scores for all of the players still available for the day that Johnny shot 63?

[Garland Bayley]

So George, is that your nice way of you saying 30 of 35 58s and 59s coming in the era of the new ball is not statistically significant? It actually could be 32 of 35, as two of them may have benefited from the new ball, but I wasn't sure they would. They would benefit from many of the other equipment advances though.

[George Pazin]

So George, is that your nice way of you saying 30 of 35 58s and 59s coming in the era of the new ball is not statistically significant? It actually could be 32 of 35, as two of them may have benefited from the new ball, but I wasn't sure they would. They would benefit from many of the other equipment advances though.

Not at all. It's my way of saying that stats fail us in each of these instances, so we are left to our own conclusions.


I certainly believe it's not a coincidence. I recall an article where a club pro tried to hit the shot Jack hit at Baltusrol in 69 (?), a 1 iron with a balata ball, and he failed repeatedly. The uniform standardization of equipment - and especially balls - has likely contributed greatly to the increased frequency of super low scores.

[George Pazin]

If you want my golf fan/math geek opinion as to why there have been so many low scores recently, I think it is largely due to two separate factors:


1) Equipment - the big change here isn't so much the distance the ball goes as the distances mishits go. I think modern equipment has so greatly reduced the "penalty" for mishits that everyone swings for the fences all the time - as they should, given point 2)...


2) Depth of fields - there are so many players capable of putting together great rounds and then great tournaments that golfers are pretty much forced to go for it, every time. It's kind of the pro golf extension of "I didn't fly 3000 miles to lay up". When there are so many guys capable of going low, repeatedly, you have to go for it or be left behind. The days of play safe golf for 3 days and try to win it Sunday afternoon are over.


When you combine better equipment with this changed attitude/strategy, you have more low scores.


QED

[Kalen Braley]

George,


I totally agree with you in principle here, this is basically an unwinnable argument in either direction, regardless of how many golf related stats are put out there


In addition to what you mentioned, there are also other/anecdotal factors to consider.  Conditioning of Players, Quality of Golf Teachers and Tools, Ease of Travel with schedule implications,  Condition of courses, Nutrition and Diet improvements, Feeder programs/instruction for a far wider reach of potential players, Differences in Monday Qualifying vs Year long card, etc, etc.


All of these things lead me to believe as you do... that players and fields are far deeper than they were during Arnie and Jacks time.  Far more entrants who could actually win.  Far fewer player who are intimidated by living legends.  Far fewer differences between top notch and 2nd tier players.

[Sean_A]

The nature of golf is such that it doesn't lend itself to simple statistical analysis, as is often offered on here.


There are a limited number of events, and very few meaningful events (ie majors), compared with the number of pro golfers out there. When you add in the statistical dominators (Jack, Tiger, etc), you can't meaningfully compare across eras. There simply aren't enough samples.


Simplistically, if Tiger plays 20 years, with 4 majors each year, and wins 14, that only leaves 66 other majors to be won. You can't have 5x as many different major champions among the rest - there aren't enough events! And one other great player - oh, let's call him Phil or Tom - can completely skew the "other guys capable of winning a major, as evidenced by other guys winning a major" evidence offered.


Someone with more time on his hands might be able to compare the relative rankings of the guys who won - in other words, coming up with some sort of average ranking of the guys who win majors. If it was 15 during Jack's time and 50 during Tiger's, that would imply a lot more guys capable of winning majors.


But that depends on accurate rankings for those other guys, and I doubt that really exists.


In the end, people believe what they want to believe.


And anyone who believes the fields during Jack's time were anywhere remotely close to the fields during Tiger's time is simply delusional and trapped in that great coping mechanism, denial.


 


And anyone who believes the fields during Tiger's time will compare to the fields of the next Tiger, in 10-20-30 years, is equally delusional...


Likewise, there is a lower bound to how low you can go, so all those discussions about 58s, 59s, 62s, 63s, well, they all have to be assessed individually as well. And that doesn't even take into account weather, course set up, etc, etc.


Maybe Brent Hutto could explain it better to everyone, if he still posted on here....

George


I have said this before. Matchplay, I will take Jack's 5 best competitors against Tiger's 5 best competitors every day, every week, every year.


People are deluded in this day and age if they don't think Player, Watson, Palmer, Trevino and whoever else wouldn't have kicked Tiger's competition to hell and back.


Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
1) Equipment - the big change here isn't so much the distance the ball goes as the distances mishits go. I think modern equipment has so greatly reduced the "penalty" for mishits that everyone swings for the fences all the time - as they should, given point 2)...

Are there "mishits", or failures to perfectly square the club face?

2) Depth of fields - there are so many players capable of putting together great rounds and then great tournaments that golfers are pretty much forced to go for it, every time. It's kind of the pro golf extension of "I didn't fly 3000 miles to lay up". When there are so many guys capable of going low, repeatedly, you have to go for it or be left behind. The days of play safe golf for 3 days and try to win it Sunday afternoon are over.


When you combine better equipment with this changed attitude/strategy, you have more low scores.


QED

Are they forced to go for it? Or, are they enabled to go for it? My opinion is that they are enabled.

[George Pazin]

George


I have said this before. Matchplay, I will take Jack's 5 best competitors against Tiger's 5 best competitors every day, every week, every year.


People are deluded in this day and age if they don't think Player, Watson, Palmer, Trevino and whoever else wouldn't have kicked Tiger's competition to hell and back.


Ciao

And you would be wrong.


 


Nothing wrong with that, plenty of people live with you in denial.


I will grant you, if they were playing with the old equipment, those guys were just tougher at dealing with that sort of thing, kind of like old time high schoolers versus today's snowflakes. But from what I've seen with my son's education, my friends - the creme de la creme, as it were - didn't have anything potential wise on today's snowflakes.


But playing ability wise, believing Arnie, Lee, Johnny and Tom were any better than Ernie, Phil, Vijay, Sergio, etc, well, that's just plain gullibility...

[George Pazin]

Are they forced to go for it? Or, are they enabled to go for it? My opinion is that they are enabled.

Sure, they are enabled, but the depth of the fields is what forces them. If they don't, someone else will.


Put another way, if today's players were to play with old school equipment, with the amount of money at stake today, I think they'd adapt pretty quickly and still just keep going for it. They couldn't afford not to.


I get that people want to cling to the past. I do, too, in many ways. But at least I'm aware of it...

[Garland Bayley]

...
But playing ability wise, believing Arnie, Lee, Johnny and Tom were any better than Ernie, Phil, Vijay, Sergio, etc, well, that's just plain gullibility...

Seems to me that Tom beat Ernie, Phil, Vijay, Sergio, etc. at age 59. So who's gullible now?

[Kalen Braley]

Arnie was on the tail end of his career, so he wasn't really a competitor to Jack for most of those Major wins.


And Johnny was/still is a headcase who only kept it together for a couple of good years.  Also surprised no one mentioned Seve, he was a matchplay beast as I recall.


But I'd still take Phil, Sergio, Retief, Ernie, etc over those guys. 


P.S  Johnny and Padraig are fairly close equivalents.  Had some brief flashes of brilliance, but couldn't keep it together..

[Thomas Dai]

JS using olde day gear - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nXy6LgSvfO0


"Pinch of Sand?"


Atb

[Mike Wagner]

...
1) Equipment - the big change here isn't so much the distance the ball goes as the distances mishits go. I think modern equipment has so greatly reduced the "penalty" for mishits that everyone swings for the fences all the time - as they should, given point 2)...

Are there "mishits", or failures to perfectly square the club face?

2) Depth of fields - there are so many players capable of putting together great rounds and then great tournaments that golfers are pretty much forced to go for it, every time. It's kind of the pro golf extension of "I didn't fly 3000 miles to lay up". When there are so many guys capable of going low, repeatedly, you have to go for it or be left behind. The days of play safe golf for 3 days and try to win it Sunday afternoon are over.


When you combine better equipment with this changed attitude/strategy, you have more low scores.


QED

Are they forced to go for it? Or, are they enabled to go for it? My opinion is that they are enabled.

You won't agree ... ever .. but this is the proof that you don't know how good these guys are.  Saying they are "enabled" is paramount to simply not relating, which is understandable.  You won't ever be able to relate to what goes into being as good as they are - that's not to be demeaning, it just is.  I'm not saying equipment hasn't helped things, but it doesn't account for much.  We all deal with what we have at the time.  If I was going to pick one thing to account for the grouping of 59s, I would say relatively flat modern greens (notice no 59s at Augusta) could account as much as anything. 

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

Have to wonder how you qualify in diagnosing relatablness. Care to share?

[Sean_A]

Are they forced to go for it? Or, are they enabled to go for it? My opinion is that they are enabled.

Sure, they are enabled, but the depth of the fields is what forces them. If they don't, someone else will.


Put another way, if today's players were to play with old school equipment, with the amount of money at stake today, I think they'd adapt pretty quickly and still just keep going for it. They couldn't afford not to.


I get that people want to cling to the past. I do, too, in many ways. But at least I'm aware of it...

George


Guys today using old equipment isn't the question.  Its the guys I mentioned using today's equipment, coaching, training and course conditioning that is the issue.  For some reason folks imagine great champions of past eras stuck in time rather than assuming they would have taken advantage of all the improvements that today's guys do.  The talent, skill and competitiveness of the those guys was off the charts.  I will always believe that the top champions of any era would be top champions of any future era.  To believe anything else is arrogance beyond belief 


Ciao 

[Garland Bayley]

Also have to notice that Augusta is not that special having given up 63s. I.e., it could have been the site where we were dicussing the new major scoring record at.