Golf Buy-Sell (compliments of Gary Player)

[Coach34]

He said what I've believed all along:

It's harder for Tiger to win regular tourneys because of the depth on the Tour today- but it was harder for Nicklaus to win Majors because the top level of players were better and had more experience winning the big ones

 

[4suredog]

I actually agree with you 34, is there something I can take for that???? Also, If you like golf, beer and booze, this is the best event in Starkville. 3 man scramble in August, with all the beer, open bar, cash payout...Good stuff!!!! www.tikiclassic.com

 

[ckDOG]

There is no easy way to back it up with stats, etc., but I do understand what Player is trying to say. There aren't alot of players out there today that seem to have that "it" factor. There's a ton of really talented golfers now, but none of them seem to have that intense desire to destroy their opponents the way Palmer, Player, Jack, Watson, and Tiger have/had. Obviously, that's just opinion.

But, looking on the other side, maybe the depth of the talent today prohibits superstars from being made? Perhaps there are just too many very talented golfers to allow any handful of them to establish themselves as the Palmer, Player, Watson, etc. of today. Tiger did it. Phil has done it. The rest might just be beating each other up. That's a possibility as well.

 

[MagnoliaHunter]

Guys with talent can go out there and half-*** it and make millions of dollars. Phil even admitted in an interview a few years backthat that was basicly what he was doing. He could work on his golf about 1/3 or so as much as Tiger and not work out, duh, that's evident, and still make millions playing a game he loved and have lots of time with his family.

 

[Dawgzilla]

The thing about the Tour today, is that any one of 100 guys can get a little hot and become unbeatable for a 4 day stretch...even good enough to beat Tiger's "A" game. I understand what folks are saying, that these guys lack the experience of competing in majors that is usually necessary to win a major, but a quick glance at the number of "no names" who have won majors over the last 10 years or so quickly dispels that theory. There is always a Ben Curtis or Zach Johnson in the field capable of pulling the upset.

 

[coursesuper]

Mr. Player is on of the nicest people in golf, certainly on of the nicest that I have meet.

 

[patdog]

He could work on his golf about 1/3 or so as much as Tiger and not work out, duh, that's evident, and still make millions playing a game he loved and have lots of time with his family.

That's basically whatall the old guys did their entire careers.The working on theirgolf 1/3 as much as Tiger is probably an exaggeration for both Phil and the old guys. But none of them worked out at all.

 

[4suredog]

I think the biggest difference is technology. Bottom line in todays game, any weekend warrior can improve his game 10 shots with the right clubs. The tour players today have it so fine tuned that its scary. The old guys were playin with butter knives and out of round golf balls. Karsten brought a ton of players to the game but in my opinion the cavity back has hurt the finer points of the game. Instead of having the correct swing and working hard to acheive it, you simply buy big headed clubs and shaft with the flex point that works with your terrible *** backswing. Its amazing seeing junior players dads crow about how much there son has improved from year to tear, when in reality he's only gotten a little bigger and stronger but still has huge swing flaws. But without the old fashion blade, people have no idea how bad they are actually missing the damn ball. But I digress......www.tikiclassic.com

 

[gmontgom]

wow

 

[RebelBruiser]

Back with older golf technology, you may have had to have a better long game than short game to survive. These days you can bash the ball and recover with your short game.

The courses have adapted to the technology though, and of course everyone else is playing with the same equipment, so to win you still have to be that much better than your competition regardless of the technology. The techonolgy may have changed the areas that you have to fine tune the most to win, but you're still competing against a level playing field.

 

[4suredog]

My disagreement bruiser would be that swing flaws can be overcome with technology and in the past they could not. LIke I said before, a weekend warrior can improve several shots just with technology. Tour players can zero in even closer than before, but they now do it with actually bad swings because the tech was designed around there swing instead of them actually improving there swing....I realize the old players didn't have good swings by todays standards, but the overall game was better. They had to hit in the center of the club every single time or have a disaster. Todays players can miss it all over the club head but still have a solid shot.

 

[ckDOG]

Perhaps the improvements made on the equipment side have been offset by the one dimensional players we tend to see today - as least with respect to not having a handful of superstars that seem to be in contention at every major golf event - like back in the day with Jack and Co?

Maybe the average tour player has gotten so good at a relatively small selection of shots (bomb a drive, rely on bread and butter cut or fade approach, pitch/putt on a flawless green) since the equipment setups allow that to happen. Like you said, today's equipment allows current day players to fine tune the equipment to their swing and mask any flaws they may have.

The superstars of yesterday didn't have the luxury of the high-tech equipment of today, so they were forced to become very good at a multiple set of shots (high, low, cuts, fades, etc.) and hitting it pure absolutely every single time. This effectively created better strikers of the ball and ultimately more versatile professionals. If shot A wasn't there for them on any given day, then they could find a way to win with Shots B, C, or D. With today's professional, they are either firing on all cylinders or struggling to find a way to score.

Just look to the scoring average leaders on tour dating back to the 40's. There's not a very wide variance given the advances in equipment over the decades. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any tour scoring averages to compare the entire fields over time. That would be an interesting stat.

 

[urethrafranklin]

there are a few factors that play into what gary player said:<div>
</div><div>1. youth tours - many kids in the 90's started at the single digit ages and started playing on summer youth tours by middle school. it makes players better, and by the time they get on tour they know at least the basic tools it takes to win (even if they aren't up to the talent).</div><div>
</div><div>2. golf balls - sure golf club technology has gotten better, but in many ways, the best irons, wedges and putters from 30-40 years ago are similar to the best clubs now. players still play with forged irons, blade wedges, and most putters used on the tour are the same in concept as they were 20 years ago. the big difference is that balls have basically been overhauled - going from multi layered designs of thread, to 2 layer designs of urethanes, now to multi-core synthetic designs that offer aerodynamic, control, and weight advantages over their predecessors. players can pick from any number of designs, or even get balls customized for their performance in a way that clubs are simply not.</div><div>
</div><div>3. course up keep - watch old footage of majors, and watch them today, there's much more treachery in today's major. the greens are also much more closely cut, which is a good thing on our local courses, but when tuned to championship standards, there is an increased emphasis on where you land a ball, which can play for or against players styles moreso than 50 years ago, and places even more emphasis on accurate drives.</div>

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

then, and now!

Same balls, same clubs are available to ALL! Was the same situation, back in the day!

 

[4suredog]

So karl, either you can't break 90 but carry a card in your wallet that says your a 17 hcp to prove that you can or you haven't read one word above.......Its not in ANY WAY SIMILAR to the same balls and clubs. 30 years ago, there was basically 3 ball manufactures that each made 1 ( ONE) version of there ball, and at max, even on the pro tour 5-7 club manufactures who made a club based on what they thought was the way to make a club.......Today there are dozens of variations of each ball. If you don't know the difference in a top flight and a proV then you fall into either one of the above mentioned categories. If you don't think the difference in club selection matters, you still fall into one of the above mentioned categories. Secondly, there are THOUSANDS, literally thousands of shaft/club/ ball combination's that a current pro can use based on HIS swing. They literally change entire bags out day to day depending on the course conditions based on THEIR swing.....Not their ability to make the swing twice. One poster above nailed it, in the old days any player on tour could hit a high draw and low fade ( Again if you don't know the difference go back to the first sentence) depending on the shot at hand. Today's players have ONE shot only. The TALENT gap is massive!!!! Much better players of the game with much more control of the golf ball.

 

[coursesuper]

First is "The Ball" in the past 15 years the ball has changed greatly and added distance to the game that none ever thought we would see. This is seen in the lengths of courses that have been built in the last 10 years. I was doing a construction with a well known golf architect a few years ago and he said "Why in the wold are we building a 7500 yard golf course." and the reply ": The damn ball is to hot now". I tend ta agree with the architect that our courses should be 6900 yards or so long . Second the shaft technology has changed the clubheads and in turn the game. With some many options not only for tour pros but for the weekend guy as well you can get more out of the clubs than ever before. Thirdly though is somthing that very few of you guy even recognize, Course Conditioning,. we are doing things so close to the edge with older grasses and going beyond that with newer grass types than ever before. When I got in the biz, fairway cuting heights wer from 5/8ths to a half inch. Now 3/8ths is the norm for many clubs.and on tour the hieight of 1./4 inch for fairways is not uncommon. For greens the change is even more drastic the standard height 20 years ago was near 3/16th today 1/8th is standard with mny clubs mainatining greens at .090 inches. and going lower that that for short periods of time for events. All this means that the ball rolls futher, faster and more true on greens and rolls out much further on fairways and the ball sits up on the fairways not settled down for better contact with the ball.

All of this has worked o change the game very much over the last 20 years.

 

[RT23]

it should actually be harder to win today as compared to 30-40 years ago. Your argument is basically statingthat the equipment has leveled the playing field. I can somewhat agree with that in that it should be harder for Tiger to win today because anyone with a good swing and equipment to match can compete given a hot streak. But I dont think thats what you are trying to say.

 

[RT23]

He is by no means saying that technology has not changed over the years. We all agree that it has gotten much better even in the last 10 years. But 30 years ago, everyone on tour played with the same technology that was available back then. And today, everyone plays with the technology that is available today. So equipment bears no side in the argument of which decade was easier to dominate on tour. IF anything, equipment has enabled more people to compete in today's PGA.

Its like college baseball vs. MLB. Sure, using aluminum bats helps the college hitters better than MLB using wooden bats helps the MLB hitters. But you cant say that one college team has a better advantage over another college team because they are all using aluminum bats.

 

[RebelBruiser]

The only thing equipment changes do is change the way all the players play.

If Tiger had special club fittings and special clubs that were better than everyone else, that would be different, but he has to be the best with the best available tools. Player, Nicklaus, Palmer, etc. all had to be the best with the best available tools.

Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, golfers from any other era had to be the best with the available tools.

If you're talking about who drives it further and trying to compare eras, then yes technology comes into play to explain why guys couldn't hit the ball 350 back in the day. Technology doesn't make it any easier to win though, because you don't get an advantage against your competition. If a putting technology existed that told you exactly how hard to hit the ball and where to aim, it wouldn't make it any easier to win. It would make it easier to putt, but there would still be good putters and bad putters based on how well they could use the technology available.