tiger woods..he the man....

[scalf]

[img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img] you're right, andy, tiger still has to pass the major test..."the test of time"...but i bet he does...gl [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Clarkmeister]

Andy,

I'm having flashbacks to our baseball discussions, only more so.

Golf pre-1950 was essentially a joke IMO. At least relative to today. Lets talk 50's-70's.

The talent pool has increased both domestically and abroad. The money has increased dramatically. These two things alone essentially guarantee that todays players are better. The fields also have more entrants, the courses are tougher, the greens are faster, the rough is longer. They do video breakdown of their swings, have swing coaches and have extra time to practice before they take their private jets to the next event. If they need to work on something, they just skip the next event because they don't need the paycheck to put food on their families tables.

I think some of these "average" players today would absolutely kick ass back then. Take a mediocre guy like Furyk. I'd be very surprised if he didn't kick the snot out of anyone not named Nicklaus, and IMO he'd certainly do very similar to guys named Palmer and Player (maybe better). Yes, with the same equipment as they were using.

I think it would be overly generous to suggest that the fields they were beating in 1960 were similar to todays Nationwide Tour.

[Ray Zee]

yea clark, but back then as you say they didnt have all the technology to get their game in shape. or the good equipment. its the same in all sports. nowadays players are so much more athletes than back then. why palmer, nicklaus even smoked on the course and were way overweight. you can never really compare past generations to present as all the conditions change. the greens were real slow and bumby. would the new players be able to handle them who knows. maybe nowadays only those that can put on fast greens get to be top pros. still the new athletic athletes are hands down better at competing at any game.

[HDPM]

There are a lot of reasons why it is harder to win. But a major factor in the average Tour event is the depth of field combined with the all-exempt format. Up until the all exempt top 125 in the '80's, only 60 players were exempt. A lot of these guys kept their exemption just because they were in the top 60. It was much much easier to stay in the top 60 than to get there. Now 125 guys are exempt and more than that can play the events through various exemptions without Monday qualifying. Who'd more of a threat to contend on Sunday - a guy who was 85 on the money list and has won on Tour who flies first class to a tournament, plays a practice round and a pro-am round, stays in a good hotel, has a courtesy car etc... OR a non exempt rabbit who drove 14 hours to the tournament, had a 7:00 tee time in the monday qualifier, made it by a shot, and is staying in a motel 6 with two other guys? Back in the day, 30 or 40 guys showed up who might win, and fewer had a really good shot. Now 100 guys can win every week. If Tiger only played in limited-field events like the Tour Championship or WGC events, do you think his winning % would be lower or even higher? I say higher. Kind of like playing poker hands multi-way or heads-up. Just the fact there are more players out there does damage. And when they have relative financial security and a desire to win, they become very dangerous players who are tough to beat. The foreign players are really starting to have an impact too, especially the ones playing here full time. The average is way better on the Tour.

[olemissgolf]

My 2 cents. The best at every era would always be competitive. They are winners. But the number of people capable of winning increases every year.
Also, Furyk could only be considered "mediocre" when compared to the top 5 in the world. He is a very strong golfer. ( I know you were actually complimenting him).
And the Nationwide Tour today is MUCH deeper than the PGA Tour in the mid'60s. I'm not criticizing the top golfers of that era. But for many reasons, there was NO depth.

[Roy Munson]

I would beg to differ that a multiple tour winner such as Jim Furyk could be described as mediocre. Especially when he plays in LV.