[Tom Bacsanyi]

So what year will we see 59 in a MAJOR?  I predict there will be a mass suicide of GCA members.  Heaven's Gate style.


In my opinion, the reason scores keep marching lower is the smoothness/consistency/speed of putting greens on the tour.  Today's tour pro facing a 4 footer makes very close to 100% of the putts made with the right line and speed.  4 footers in Bobby Jones day?  80/20?  Miller's day? 90/10?  Purely theoretical, but that's my two cents.  Look at Chambers Bay.  -5 wins on a fairly wide course without the usual US Open rough.  Greens were 1970s British Open quality or something.  Similar kind of shots tee to green at Erin Hills but with perfect greens, a million under wins.


I would love to see a PGA tour event where the cutting height was mandated at .125 or higher and no PGR applications were allowed.  Target stimp of 7.  What would the winning score be?

[jeffwarne]

So what year will we see 59 in a MAJOR?  I predict there will be a mass suicide of GCA members.  Heaven's Gate style.


In my opinion, the reason scores keep marching lower is the smoothness/consistency/speed of putting greens on the tour.  Today's tour pro facing a 4 footer makes very close to 100% of the putts made with the right line and speed.  4 footers in Bobby Jones day?  80/20?  Miller's day? 90/10?  Purely theoretical, but that's my two cents.  Look at Chambers Bay.  -5 wins on a fairly wide course without the usual US Open rough.  Greens were 1970s British Open quality or something.  Similar kind of shots tee to green at Erin Hills but with perfect greens, a million under wins.


I would love to see a PGA tour event where the cutting height was mandated at .125 or higher and no PGR applications were allowed.  Target stimp of 7.  What would the winning score be?

Spot on.
and you forgot to mention how many greens have had slopes reduced to accomodate speed.
a 10 footer on a tour green is easily the same as 6 footer from the 1980's.
More speed and more smoothness means a shorter stroke and if the ball is mishit slightly so what?
Also, faster greens with less slope means there's not a lot of difference between a slow uphiller and a fast downhill

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

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

People who share similar experiences relate to one another.  You do not have the experience of being a tour pro ... nor do I.  So, the flip side:  how on earth do you think you would possibly relate to the best golfers in the world?  It's not a knock - it's just a fact that your credibility when discussing talent that you can't really comprehend ... is well, non-existent.

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

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

People who share similar experiences relate to one another.  You do not have the experience of being a tour pro ... nor do I.  So, the flip side:  how on earth do you think you would possibly relate to the best golfers in the world?  It's not a knock - it's just a fact that your credibility when discussing talent that you can't really comprehend ... is well, non-existent.

That's like saying Dave Pelz has no business trying to inform tour pros based on the data he has seen. Obviously, the data I reported is nowhere near as detailed as Dave's, but it is more detailed than no one has shot 59 at Augusta.

[George Pazin]

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

I actually agree with this. It's you who do not seem to, as evidenced by your belief that the old champs would wipe the floor with today's guys. The primary difference I see is that there are simply many more of these extreme talents, all around the world.

[Sean_A]

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

I actually agree with this. It's you who do not seem to, as evidenced by your belief that the old champs would wipe the floor with today's guys. The primary difference I see is that there are simply many more of these extreme talents, all around the world.

That is where we differ.  I don't think there is more extreme talent around today than in Jack's day.  I don't think Ernie and Phil are as good as Trevino, Player and Watson were.  The list of major winners bears this out.  When the new lot do as well as Jack's lot than I will believe.  Until then....  Of course the new lot really is new because Tiger, Phil and Ernie are done. 


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

It might be heresy, but i'll say it anyways.  OTM wouldn't even be good enough to make the min-tours much less the big one if he were around today.


The original Open Championship was nothing more than a local club championship of rag tag guys who liked to play in thier spare time. 

[Carl Nichols]

I don't know if there are any hard data on this point, but it does seem obvious to me that the best golfers in the world are competing for that position against a much, much larger pool (geographically, socio-economically, etc.) than ever before in history.  The result, I would think, is that the best golfers now are probably "better" than the best golfers were in the past. 

[Garland Bayley]

George,

When it comes to the Jack era vs. Tiger era, your two big guns Tiger 13-17-3 and Phil 18-20-7 can't even beat their contemporaries. This argument about eras to me has always been about desire and toughness more than necessarily about skill. That also translates into transposing the old guys into the modern era where their desire and toughness would serve them well in taking to the modern methods and training.

[Garland Bayley]

It might be heresy, but i'll say it anyways.  OTM wouldn't even be good enough to make the min-tours much less the big one if he were around today.


The original Open Championship was nothing more than a local club championship of rag tag guys who liked to play in thier spare time.

Well it certainly wasn't a local club championship.

But, thanks for the mental image of the modern guys whining about bumpy greens, flyer lies in the fairway, etc.

[Kalen Braley]

It might be heresy, but i'll say it anyways.  OTM wouldn't even be good enough to make the min-tours much less the big one if he were around today.


The original Open Championship was nothing more than a local club championship of rag tag guys who liked to play in thier spare time.

Well it certainly wasn't a local club championship.

But, thanks for the mental image of the modern guys whining about bumpy greens, flyer lies in the fairway, etc.

The 1st year, they had 8 players and then 18 the 2nd year when some local hacks complained about being excluded.


Comparing those guys to even web.com guys is a joke, much less the current major champs.

[George Pazin]

George,

When it comes to the Jack era vs. Tiger era, your two big guns Tiger 13-17-3 and Phil 18-20-7 can't even beat their contemporaries. This argument about eras to me has always been about desire and toughness more than necessarily about skill. That also translates into transposing the old guys into the modern era where their desire and toughness would serve them well in taking to the modern methods and training.

Gotta admit, I don't even know what this means. It's a version of English with which I'm unfamiliar.


I get the toughness beliefs, I just don't subscribe to it myself. People who make it to the level of any top player, regardless of era, have proven their toughness to me personally. It might be a different kind of toughness, but it's more likely the same thing, just manifested in a different manner.


-----


Sean, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see how you can say the greats are the greats in any era, and then say one's greats are better, but I also can't see anyway to prove or disprove it. That's just a starting point, a premise for a discussion, and I disagree with the very premise that Lee, Johnny, Tom, etc were any more talented than Phil, Ernie, et al. I personally think Tiger was enough better than Jack versus his competitors that it skews things. As Brent Hutto once observed, people seem to argue that if those guys had occasionally beaten Tiger, it would improve their opinion of them and thus their opinion of Tiger's accomplishments. And that's downright silly. But hey, if you don't wanna believe that, that's fine by me.


Cheers!

[Garland Bayley]

It might be heresy, but i'll say it anyways.  OTM wouldn't even be good enough to make the min-tours much less the big one if he were around today.


The original Open Championship was nothing more than a local club championship of rag tag guys who liked to play in thier spare time.

Well it certainly wasn't a local club championship.

But, thanks for the mental image of the modern guys whining about bumpy greens, flyer lies in the fairway, etc.

The 1st year, they had 8 players and then 18 the 2nd year when some local hacks complained about being excluded.


Comparing those guys to even web.com guys is a joke, much less the current major champs.

My point about it not being a local club championship was that it had pros from different clubs. Sure there was a limited field, but the players had competition from different clubs to raise the level of play. You couldn't get that level of play at a single club.

[Niall C]

In my opinion, the reason scores keep marching lower is the smoothness/consistency/speed of putting greens on the tour.  Today's tour pro facing a 4 footer makes very close to 100% of the putts made with the right line and speed.  4 footers in Bobby Jones day?  80/20?  Miller's day? 90/10?  Purely theoretical, but that's my two cents.  Look at Chambers Bay.  -5 wins on a fairly wide course without the usual US Open rough.  Greens were 1970s British Open quality or something.  Similar kind of shots tee to green at Erin Hills but with perfect greens, a million under wins.


I would love to see a PGA tour event where the cutting height was mandated at .125 or higher and no PGR applications were allowed.  Target stimp of 7.  What would the winning score be?

Tom


I've no argument one way or the other regarding what green speeds should be but as a counter to your assertion that speed of greens makes it easier, what about the idea that faster greens actually make it harder to get close ? For instance todays greens might be better for sinking a five foot putt but equally are they not harder to hit and hold and get the ball close to the pin. How often do you see balls land and bounce to a few feet and then spin back to 20 or 30 feet in a way they wouldn't if the greens were slower. Same with run offs.


That players continue to get close or even closer than days gone by probably is down to them, generally speaking, hitting shorter irons into the the greens than players used to.


Niall

[Sean_A]

George,

When it comes to the Jack era vs. Tiger era, your two big guns Tiger 13-17-3 and Phil 18-20-7 can't even beat their contemporaries. This argument about eras to me has always been about desire and toughness more than necessarily about skill. That also translates into transposing the old guys into the modern era where their desire and toughness would serve them well in taking to the modern methods and training.

Sean, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see how you can say the greats are the greats in any era, and then say one's greats are better, but I also can't see anyway to prove or disprove it. That's just a starting point, a premise for a discussion, and I disagree with the very premise that Lee, Johnny, Tom, etc were any more talented than Phil, Ernie, et al. I personally think Tiger was enough better than Jack versus his competitors that it skews things. As Brent Hutto once observed, people seem to argue that if those guys had occasionally beaten Tiger, it would improve their opinion of them and thus their opinion of Tiger's accomplishments. And that's downright silly. But hey, if you don't wanna believe that, that's fine by me.


Cheers!

George

I never said all champions are equal.  That much should be easy to agree upon since Jack was head and shoulders above anybody as his record clearly demonstrates. Tiger was head and shoulders above everybody bar Jack. 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

It might be heresy, but i'll say it anyways.  OTM wouldn't even be good enough to make the min-tours much less the big one if he were around today.


The original Open Championship was nothing more than a local club championship of rag tag guys who liked to play in thier spare time.

Well it certainly wasn't a local club championship.

But, thanks for the mental image of the modern guys whining about bumpy greens, flyer lies in the fairway, etc.

The 1st year, they had 8 players and then 18 the 2nd year when some local hacks complained about being excluded.


Comparing those guys to even web.com guys is a joke, much less the current major champs.

My point about it not being a local club championship was that it had pros from different clubs. Sure there was a limited field, but the players had competition from different clubs to raise the level of play. You couldn't get that level of play at a single club.

I can concede that at best it was a watered down version of a PGA Professional Championship.  Still not the caliber of high level touring pros....

[George Pazin]

George

I never said all champions are equal.  That much should be easy to agree upon since Jack was head and shoulders above anybody as his record clearly demonstrates. Tiger was head and shoulders above everybody bar Jack. 

Ciao

I'm starting to think you're just messing with me. Did I ever say you said all champions are equal? I quoted you saying the greats are the greats and would be great in any era (paraphrasing in this case). I can't even begin to see how someone might think Jack's record clearly demonstrates he's head and shoulders above anybody, and that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there's an argument to be made for Jack, a better argument to be made for Tiger, and even arguments to be made for Jones, Hogan, Nelson, etc. I think the record is hardly clear in any circumstance.


Cheers!

[Sean_A]

George

I never said all champions are equal.  That much should be easy to agree upon since Jack was head and shoulders above anybody as his record clearly demonstrates. Tiger was head and shoulders above everybody bar Jack. 

Ciao

I'm starting to think you're just messing with me. Did I ever say you said all champions are equal? I quoted you saying the greats are the greats and would be great in any era (paraphrasing in this case). I can't even begin to see how someone might think Jack's record clearly demonstrates he's head and shoulders above anybody, and that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there's an argument to be made for Jack, a better argument to be made for Tiger, and even arguments to be made for Jones, Hogan, Nelson, etc. I think the record is hardly clear in any circumstance.


Cheers!

Not at all...4 more majors is an entirely separate and great career...see Ernie Els.  Jack is miles ahead of anybody....imo its not a debate.

As I say, there is great and there is gggreat and there is Tiger and there is Jack.  Greatness is not equal.  I believe Jack's big rival contemporaries represent the highest quality era that has thus far existed.   That belief is based mainly on major wins.  I don't buy into formulated arguments to explain why the best of today can't win as much as the best of Jack's day.  It is no accident that between them, Arnie, Trevino and Palmer won far more majors than Els, Michelson and pick your third.  And that was competing against the best guy to ever swing a stick!

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Not at all...4 more majors is an entirely separate and great career...see Ernie Els.  Jack is miles ahead of anybody....imo its not a debate.

As I say, there is great and there is gggreat and there is Tiger and there is Jack.  Greatness is not equal.  I believe Jack's big rival contemporaries represent the highest quality era that has thus far existed.   That belief is based mainly on major wins.  I don't buy into formulated arguments to explain why the best of today can't win as much as the best of Jack's day.  It is no accident that between them, Arnie, Trevino and Palmer won far more majors than Els, Michelson and pick your third.  And that was competing against the best guy to ever swing a stick!

Ciao

You're right, it's no accident - there were far fewer top competitors! And that's precisely why Tiger's accomplishments are at least on par, if not better, than Jack's.


I'll let you have the last word, if you'd like it. Otherwise, I hope you tee it up somewhere fun this weekend.

[Garland Bayley]

You're right, it's no accident - there were far fewer top competitors! And that's precisely why Tiger's accomplishments are at least on par, if not better, than Jack's.

Care to quantify that audacious claim?

[Mark Fedeli]

You're right, it's no accident - there were far fewer top competitors! And that's precisely why Tiger's accomplishments are at least on par, if not better, than Jack's.

Care to quantify that audacious claim?

I think the crux of the argument is that it's less about whether the Top 10 players in 2017 are better than the Top 10 from 1967, but rather that the 500th ranked player in 2017 could mop the floor with the 75th ranked player from 1967.

[SL_Solow]

I'll stay out of the comparison of eras for the moment; you can only beat your contemporaries, you can only use the equipment that exists (unless you're Gene Sarazen) and you can only adapt to conditions you are given.  But an anecdote about green speeds may be in order.

We move the Illinois Amateur tourney around the state.  In 2016 it was held at a nice country club course (architect Bendelow) in Chicago's western suburbs.  Too short by modern standards with most greens sloped back to front.  Poa greens.  A very hot week with not too much wind so, in order to keep the greens alive, the super couldn't get the greens out of the 9's, perhaps less.  A very good college player, Nick Hardy , broke the tourney record by about 10 strokes and several others also broke the record, although Nick was well ahead of the field.  The slower greens didn't have an adverse impact.While the course was made for low scoring, so are others that have held the tourney.  One swallow does not make a spring but this anecdote supports my view that good putters will adjust and the increased emphasis on putting leads to better results.  I suspect any impact caused by slowing greens down would be incremental.  Making them less smooth; now that's a different story.   Makes one marvel at players like Bobby Jones whose putter had about 11 degrees of loft or even Bobby Locke putting on the greens of the 40's and 50's.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

You're right, it's no accident - there were far fewer top competitors! And that's precisely why Tiger's accomplishments are at least on par, if not better, than Jack's.

Care to quantify that audacious claim?

I think the crux of the argument is that it's less about whether the Top 10 players in 2017 are better than the Top 10 from 1967, but rather that the 500th ranked player in 2017 could mop the floor with the 75th ranked player from 1967.

Bingo.  The notion of a "Career Tour Pro" without any wins is a new thing (1997-).  Back in Jack's day, you either won some events or you went back to your club pro job.  You couldn't sustain yourself with just some top 10s.  Now as long as you can get x number of top tens and y number of top 25s you can make a million dollars without ever really coming close to a win.  And if it doesn't work out you go make a couple hundred thousand on the Web.com tour or go to Europe/Asia etc.


So the 75th ranked player from '67 probably had a very short career.  Or was a decent player that had a bad year.


Morris Hatalsky was the 75th ranked player in 1980 (as far back as the official money list database goes on the PGA Tour site).  He made $47,107. I'm too lazy to adjust it for inflation, but that ain't much.  Currently Kevin Streelman is the 75th ranked player, and he's made 1.2 million, and there's still a bunch of tournaments to go.  Tom Watson was the leading money winner in 1980, and my guess is if he played Morris in 10 matches he'd win 9 of them.  If Spieth played Streelman I believe Jordan would win 6 of them.  The field is deeper and more competent because it's a hell of a meal ticket.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

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

People who share similar experiences relate to one another.  You do not have the experience of being a tour pro ... nor do I.  So, the flip side:  how on earth do you think you would possibly relate to the best golfers in the world?  It's not a knock - it's just a fact that your credibility when discussing talent that you can't really comprehend ... is well, non-existent.

That's like saying Dave Pelz has no business trying to inform tour pros based on the data he has seen. Obviously, the data I reported is nowhere near as detailed as Dave's, but it is more detailed than no one has shot 59 at Augusta.

Not even remotely close to what I'm saying.  You pulled the ole' switcheroo, but at least you cleared up your wikipedia search not being close to Dave's data

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

Since you know essentially nothing of my talents, how can you draw conclusions about them?

You say my conclusions about verifiable statistic are wrong, because I am not a tour pro, but you are apparently willing to accept Dave Pelz conclusions about nonverifiable statistics  (he could have made them up) even though he is not a tour pro.

You seem to believe in a discontinuity in tour pro performance, because after all they are tour pros.

We all know the modern-day ball goes farther. We all know courses have been lengthened to adjust for that. So shouldn't we see a rather smooth curve in improved scoring to account for that? What is your explanation for the discontinuity?
And, don't give the because tour pro are tour pros answer. That explains nothing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()