Old school v present day

Goldenjohn

Really enjoyable article in Irish golf desk...

http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2014/12/27/all-time-top-100-irish-amateur-men

Best Irish amateurs of all time got me thinking. I've often thought that the golfers of yesteryear were far more skillful than the modern golfer. I actually think modern equipment has dumbed down the game no end. Dont get me wrong all the elite guys are a different league but I still reckon the skill levels of the likes of Shane Lowry is not rewarded with modern balls and equipment. What do you think?

thewobbler

Goldenjohn wrote: »

Really enjoyable article in Irish golf desk...

http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2014/12/27/all-time-top-100-irish-amateur-men

Best Irish amateurs of all time got me thinking. I've often thought that the golfers of yesteryear were far more skillful than the modern golfer. I actually think modern equipment has dumbed down the game no end. Dont get me wrong all the elite guys are a different league but I still reckon the skill levels of the likes of Shane Lowry is not rewarded with modern balls and equipment. What do you think?

i think it would be the oddest tangent in the history of evolution, if somehow there was a golden age of golfer who will always be better than their descendants.

Seeing as humans are now bigger, stronger, faster, smarter and better informed than at any point in history, it would actually be a statistical anomaly to end all statistical anomalies.

I'd suggest you are quite mad if you subscribe to your theory.

Goldenjohn

thewobbler wrote: »

i think it would be the oddest tangent in the history of evolution, if somehow there was a golden age of golfer who will always be better than their descendants.

Seeing as humans are now bigger, stronger, faster, smarter and better informed than at any point in history, it would actually be a statistical anomaly to end all statistical anomalies.

I'd suggest you are quite mad if you subscribe to your theory.

yep golfers are more athletic now....smarter I don't agree....better informed...sure,they have access to all sorts of video analysis Etc.

More skilled was what I suggested so I disagree ..I must be mad

LinksLad

It's an interesting supposition that we are more evolved now through our higher inactivity, than a generation or two ago of fitter and largely healthier people.

Go humans! Keep that evolution going, esp. on FaceBook!
Opposable thumbs are not for your average dolphin...

cairny

My guess would be that the old guys were better ball strikers....because they had to be, but this generation would be more skilful short game wise. I'm thinking Hogan v Tiger in their pomp.

Boskowski

Then golf would be pretty much the only sport I can think of where people in the olden days were performing better than today. Now I'm not saying they were less talented but they just hadn't the same access to training and playing facilities. Techniques and methods weren't as advanced. Sports research, medicine and psychology was practically non-existent. I doubt there was much of a youth development program. Equipment was inferior. Thats just off the top of my head.
I can't think of a single sport that was at remotely the same level 50 years ago then it is today. Its a different world in every way.
Look at footage from a Football World Cup from the 70ies for example, It looks like they were hardly even running. They were at their generations peak of course and that makes it the same achievement relatively speaking. But just as an example I'd say Pele would have people running circles around him today. Not saying that after a couple of years of getting used to todays pace etc he wouldn't be a good player, but if you just time warped him into todays game he'd be eaten alive.

cairny

Boskowski wrote: »

Then golf would be pretty much the only sport I can think of where people in the olden days were performing better than today. Now I'm not saying they were less talented but they just hadn't the same access to training and playing facilities. Techniques and methods weren't as advanced. Sports research, medicine and psychology was practically non-existent. I doubt there was much of a youth development program. Equipment was inferior. Thats just off the top of my head.
I can't think of a single sport that was at remotely the same level 50 years ago then it is today. Its a different world in every way.
Look at footage from a Football World Cup from the 70ies for example, It looks like they were hardly even running. They were at their generations peak of course and that makes it the same achievement relatively speaking. But just as an example I'd say Pele would have people running circles around him today. Not saying that after a couple of years of getting used to todays pace etc he wouldn't be a good player, but if you just time warped him into todays game he'd be eaten alive.

But the question the OP posed is if the improvement in equipment has meant that less skill is needed and you've included the improvement in equipment as a reason for the modern golfer being superior, this is true but not what we're discussing. The question as I understand it, is if you took an old school golfer and put him in a modern context with equipment and time to practice etc how would he fare?

I don't remember Pele playing but I'm pretty sure that if Maradona was playing in modern football where he wasn't getting kicked up in the air for 90 minutes he'd be running rings around the modern guys.

F1 might be a better analogy given that golf is a game more than a sport, do you think Fangio or Senna in a modern F1 car would be tailed off?

The idea of comparing Hogan and Tiger in their pomp really appeals to me. I'm a Hogan fan but I'm not convinced either way.

Goldenjohn

cairny wrote: »

But the question the OP posed is if the improvement in equipment has meant that less skill is needed and you've included the improvement in equipment as a reason for the modern golfer being superior, this is true but not what we're discussing. The question as I understand it, is if you took an old school golfer and put him in a modern context with equipment and time to practice etc how would he fare?

I don't remember Pele playing but I'm pretty sure that if Maradona was playing in modern football where he wasn't getting kicked up in the air for 90 minutes he'd be running rings around the modern guys.

F1 might be a better analogy given that golf is a game more than a sport, do you think Fangio or Senna in a modern F1 car would be tailed off?

The idea of comparing Hogan and Tiger in their pomp really appeals to me. I'm a Hogan fan but I'm not convinced either way.

I just feel that the modern golfer is all about power now, the majority of golfers are athletes with more emphasis on swinging as hard as possible rather than shaping the ball round the course. I'm thinking the likes the Jason Day, Dustin Johnson, Henrick etc. there are exceptions like Luke Donald but in the main most of the golfers are striving to overpower courses. Rather than giving the past golfers modern equipment I would love to see over a season how modern golfers would fair with the equipment of Hogans era.

thewobbler

Let's leave aside geniuses. People who were so utterly gifted that their impact is perennial.

Maradona, Beethoven, Bradman, Einstein, O'Sullivan, Da Vinci. Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan.

Their genius isn't related to equipment.

But the OP wasn't talking about geniuses. He was talking about the top amateurs from a small island.

The inference is that people born 50/60/70/100 years ago were generally better at golf - because they had to be - than the mollycoddled players of now, who are little more than pivots for clubs that swing themselves.

I'm pointing out that this is complete nonsense. There are infinitely more golfers in Ireland now. True they have better equipment, but they are also bigger, stronger, smarter and better informed than their predecessors. There are tens of thousands of boys who spend their entire summers honing their skills and there are dozens if not hundreds of pros-in-everything-but-name who can continue this dedication through every day of their waking life.

Yet he wants us to believe that because these old timers had no choice but to learn how to shape a feathery, that this makes them better.

It's lunacy.

(Also the person bringing F1 into this, please desist. The history of F1 suggests the best technology always wins. Golf is not the same).

cairny

thewobbler wrote: »

Let's leave aside geniuses. People who were so utterly gifted that their impact is perennial.

Maradona, Beethoven, Bradman, Einstein, O'Sullivan, Da Vinci. Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan.

Their genius isn't related to equipment.

But the OP wasn't talking about geniuses. He was talking about the top amateurs from a small island.

The inference is that people born 50/60/70/100 years ago were generally better at golf - because they had to be - than the mollycoddled players of now, who are little more than pivots for clubs that swing themselves.

I'm pointing out that this is complete nonsense. There are infinitely more golfers in Ireland now. True they have better equipment, but they are also bigger, stronger, smarter and better informed than their predecessors. There are tens of thousands of boys who spend their entire summers honing their skills and there are dozens if not hundreds of pros-in-everything-but-name who can continue this dedication through every day of their waking life.

Yet he wants us to believe that because these old timers had no choice but to learn how to shape a feathery, that this makes them better.

It's lunacy.

(Also the person bringing F1 into this, please desist. The history of F1 suggests the best technology always wins. Golf is not the same).

F1 is more relevant than soccer which is the point I was replying to...but I accept its not very relevant.

You have unfairly taken an inference that he didn't make from the OPs post. You haven't addressed the equipment issue at all. It has to be a factor.

Would Ireland's best amateur today really hammer Joe Carr? I'm not convinced at all.

thewobbler

More relevant again would be sports like snooker and darts, which like golf are tests of concentration and hand eye coordination. That sponsors no longer give big prizes out for 147s or 9-darters tells you all you need to know about the improving skill levels in those sports.

Even check out an unheralded sport like skimming stones and you'll find that highest recorded number of bounces, and longest distance covered by a stone, have both have happened in the past two years.

So why on earth would anyone presume that there was some sort of evolution defying intergalactic forcefield around golfers of 50 years ago?

Russman

I think, as the op suggested, the players of yesteryear were probably more skilful, in terms of manipulating the club face and shaping the ball one way or another. But I don't think they were necessarily better golfers.

Equipment is so different between the eras they're not really comparable in lots of ways. The ball had to be hit differently to get it in the air, for one thing. In the modern game, power and strength have become by far the most important element at the elite levels. And strength, speed, power etc are areas that humans have gotten better at or evolved with. As for skill, I'm not sure there's as much of it on display nowadays. Whether thats simply because the modern player doesn't have to be skilful or isn't skilful is open to debate.

I'd wonder if today's players would score any differently if you made 56 degrees the most lofted club allowed ? Just a thought.

Obviously the real top guys would likely manage in any era, but I suspect some of the run of the mill "bomb and gouge" merchants might struggle. Although in fairness, at amateur level, it's less pronounced I'd say.

GreeBo

i think dismissing the modern game as all about power misses an important point.
It takes great skill to be able to be the powerful and still put the ball where you want it to go.

look at the long drive guys, its not easy to hit it that far AND straight at the same time, yet the modern golfer does that repeatedly.
Its not all about equipment, there are stil players who are much longer than the rest of the field, Rory for one.

The modern golfer simply doesnt need to bend the ball as much as the old guys did, they go over more than they go around.
But thinking that they cant also bend the ball just as much is plain wrong, you only have to look at Bubba to see that.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

i think dismissing the modern game as all about power misses an important point.
It takes great skill to be able to be the powerful and still put the ball where you want it to go.

look at the long drive guys, its not easy to hit it that far AND straight at the same time, yet the modern golfer does that repeatedly.
Its not all about equipment, there are stil players who are much longer than the rest of the field, Rory for one.

The modern golfer simply doesnt need to bend the ball as much as the old guys did, they go over more than they go around.
But thinking that they cant also bend the ball just as much is plain wrong, you only have to look at Bubba to see that.

I'm not so sure the modern players do hit it straight though. Granted they don't have to. Which I think is what the op was alluding to, shot shaping etc etc. I guess it's just a different skill as such, rather than less skill. I do think there were more guys moving the ball like Bubba, 10 or 20 years ago.

Just had a quick look and in 1998 the 50th and 80th ranked guys in fairways hit were at 66.7% and 64% respectively. For last year it was 61.3% and 58%.

Yet the 50th and 80th guys in stroke average were at 71.72 and 72.24 in 1998, while last year it was 70.13 & 70.71.

So, leaving the outliers/extremes aside, the guys are taking a shot and a half less while hitting fewer fairways. Does that mean they've more skill in order to do that ? Or they're simply overpowering golf courses now ? Good question.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I'm not so sure the modern players do hit it straight though. Granted they don't have to. Which I think is what the op was alluding to, shot shaping etc etc. I guess it's just a different skill as such, rather than less skill. I do think there were more guys moving the ball like Bubba, 10 or 20 years ago.

Just had a quick look and in 1998 the 50th and 80th ranked guys in fairways hit were at 66.7% and 64% respectively. For last year it was 61.3% and 58%.

Yet the 50th and 80th guys in stroke average were at 71.72 and 72.24 in 1998, while last year it was 70.13 & 70.71.

So, leaving the outliers/extremes aside, the guys are taking a shot and a half less while hitting fewer fairways. Does that mean they've more skill in order to do that ? Or they're simply overpowering golf courses now ? Good question.

they can shape it though, when they need to.
all the top golfers can bend balls around corners and trees, they mostly go over now.

'i think comparing stats doesnt help much, they guys today would annihilate those old curse setups.

also, logically the longer you hit the ball the more likely you are to run out of fairway.
5 degrees ofline at 250 is probbaly fine, at 350 its an issue.

length is definitly a skill, otherwise they all would be doing it.
I think the governing bodies owe it to the game and old courses to bring back the necessity for more shot shaping and less over powering though.

Goldenjohn

Russman wrote: »

I think, as the op suggested, the players of yesteryear were probably more skilful, in terms of manipulating the club face and shaping the ball one way or another. But I don't think they were necessarily better golfers.

Equipment is so different between the eras they're not really comparable in lots of ways. The ball had to be hit differently to get it in the air, for one thing. In the modern game, power and strength have become by far the most important element at the elite levels. And strength, speed, power etc are areas that humans have gotten better at or evolved with. As for skill, I'm not sure there's as much of it on display nowadays. Whether thats simply because the modern player doesn't have to be skilful or isn't skilful is open to debate.

I'd wonder if today's players would score any differently if you made 56 degrees the most lofted club allowed ? Just a thought.

Obviously the real top guys would likely manage in any era, but I suspect some of the run of the mill "bomb and gouge" merchants might struggle. Although in fairness, at amateur level, it's less pronounced I'd say.

Thanks Russman I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern equipment has developed to hit the ball straighter, longer and higher therefore it doesnt necessitate as much movement of the ball. As Greebo said nowadays they often just go over any trouble. Of course they can do it but with obvious exceptions(bubba etc) I don't think the modern golfer is as skilled at shot shaping as those of the previous generations simply because they don't have to.
Personally, for professional golf I'd love them to reduce Driver head size, max 56 degree wedge and only 10 clubs in the bag
All the others aspects have obviously evolved to a higher standard eg. Fitness, power etc. that isn't the discussion

LinksLad

The ONLY one to really shape the ball now is Bubba Watson. Allusions to anything else is nonsense.

neckedit

LinksLad wrote:

The ONLY one to really shape the ball now is Bubba Watson. Allusions to anything else is nonsense.

You honestly think no other tour player can shape golf shots except Bubba Watson.....I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

GreeBo

LinksLad wrote: »

The ONLY one to really shape the ball now is Bubba Watson. Allusions to anything else is nonsense.

I can shape the ball when I need to, it's not rocket science.

blue note

I had a look at the list and JB Carr's list of victories in unbelievable!

Boskowski

GreeBo wrote: »

I can shape the ball when I need to, it's not rocket science.

It is and it isn't.

I know when I need to fade/slice all I gotta do is go hard at it.
Drawing is little more tricky. I can duck it pretty reliably but a nice draw is something I'm still working on. I can do it but the failure rate is still pretty high and it hardly ever seems to work on the hole where I really need it.

I suppose its something that comes with time; the more you get comfortable with your swing.

GreeBo

Boskowski wrote: »

It is and it isn't.

I know when I need to fade/slice all I gotta do is go hard at it.
Drawing is little more tricky. I can duck it pretty reliably but a nice draw is something I'm still working on. I can do it but the failure rate is still pretty high and it hardly ever seems to work on the hole where I really need it.

I suppose its something that comes with time; the more you get comfortable with your swing.

Understanding what causes a fade/draw is the first step. (the 9 ball flight laws graphics are perfect for this)
Once you know whats required to move the ball its actually pretty easy since you can commit to the shot.

Does it come off everytime? Nope, but neither does straight

TrapperChamonix

Russman wrote: »

I think, as the op suggested, the players of yesteryear were probably more skilful, in terms of manipulating the club face and shaping the ball one way or another. But I don't think they were necessarily better golfers.

Equipment is so different between the eras they're not really comparable in lots of ways. The ball had to be hit differently to get it in the air, for one thing. In the modern game, power and strength have become by far the most important element at the elite levels. And strength, speed, power etc are areas that humans have gotten better at or evolved with. As for skill, I'm not sure there's as much of it on display nowadays. Whether thats simply because the modern player doesn't have to be skilful or isn't skilful is open to debate.

I'd wonder if today's players would score any differently if you made 56 degrees the most lofted club allowed ? Just a thought.

Obviously the real top guys would likely manage in any era, but I suspect some of the run of the mill "bomb and gouge" merchants might struggle. Although in fairness, at amateur level, it's less pronounced I'd say.

I'd argue this has always been the case. People marveled about how far Nicklaus hit it and before he came along, Palmer and before that Hogan and before that Hagan and before that.........

thewobbler

TrapperChamonix wrote: »

I'd argue this has always been the case. People marveled about how far Nicklaus hit it and before he came along, Palmer and before that Hogan and before that Hagan and before that.........

Ah but Trapper, apparently there's no skill involved in hitting the ball far, well not if you are the OP anyway.

I do think people also need to take a step back and remember that any books about old-timers will focus almost solely on the good and great things they've done, and on the moments of magic thy delivered. The 30 tournaments between victories, which may or may not have been a succession of fluffed draws or pushed fades, won't be discussed. As there's little or no television coverage of proper old-timers it means these narratives help engender a mythology.

I'm not dismissing old time golfers, not by any stretch. But I'd imagine that any of the top 100 in the world now would have comfortably been top 30 in the 1970s, top 20 in the 50s, and top 10 in the 30s. The power, control and accuracy or modern players is astounding. Technology is only a conduit, not the reason.

Goldenjohn

thewobbler wrote: »

Ah but Trapper, apparently there's no skill involved in hitting the ball far, well not if you are the OP anyway.

and I said this where exactly?

TrapperChamonix

thewobbler wrote: »

Ah but Trapper, apparently there's no skill involved in hitting the ball far, well not if you are the OP anyway.

I do think people also need to take a step back and remember that any books about old-timers will focus almost solely on the good and great things they've done, and on the moments of magic thy delivered. The 30 tournaments between victories, which may or may not have been a succession of fluffed draws or pushed fades, won't be discussed. As there's little or no television coverage of proper old-timers it means these narratives help engender a mythology.

I'm not dismissing old time golfers, not by any stretch. But I'd imagine that any of the top 100 in the world now would have comfortably been top 30 in the 1970s, top 20 in the 50s, and top 10 in the 30s. The power, control and accuracy or modern players is astounding. Technology is only a conduit, not the reason.

But dismissing them is exactly you've done there.