2018 PGA Championship

[GrantNKY]

DJ is 34 so not under 30. Rickie folds under the pressure every major. Rahm, Dechambeau, and Fleetwood have less than 10 tour wins between and 0 Majors.

 

Stenson is Tigers age, Bubba is 39, and Rose is 38. They are Tigers generation.

 

Like I said, other than Spieth, Rory, and Koepka none of these young guns are dominating majors.

Forgot DJ was that old. The reason that no one is dominating majors is because there are so many players capable of winning majors now. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the subject. But the idea that players in every other sport are better now than prior generations except in golf is crazy to me.

[woodsrider]

Forgot DJ was that old. The reason that no one is dominating majors is because there are so many players capable of winning majors now. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the subject. But the idea that players in every other sport are better now than prior generations except in golf is crazy to me.

We aren't talking about guys that played in the 60's. This was 10-20 years ago. What sport are guys now better than 10-20 years ago? And to be honest I don't think anyone thinks players are more skilled now at sports just bigger faster stronger. I would say most would argue baseball players of the past were better at the sport then today. Especially the art of hitting.

[TheDeuce]

But the idea that players in every other sport are better now than prior generations except in golf is crazy to me.

 

The game of golf is different from every other sport. The game itself doesn't change. It's not like football or basketball. Yeah you can have guys that are bigger and stronger in golf, but that only helps you off the tee. As a whole, the game hasn't changed, at all. That's why guys can play for decades, there's really no adaptations that have to be made to keep up with the game. It's exactly why a guy who was in his prime 20 years ago can miss every fairway on the front nine in the last day of a major and still only lose by two strokes to the new up and comer.

[woodsrider]

The game of golf is different from every other sport. The game itself doesn't change. It's not like football or basketball. Yeah you can have guys that are bigger and stronger in golf, but that only helps you off the tee. As a whole, the game hasn't changed, at all. That's why guys can play for decades, there's really no adaptations that have to be made to keep up with the game. It's exactly why a guy who was in his prime 20 years ago can miss every fairway on the front nine in the last day of a major and still only lose by two strokes to the new up and comer.

And I'd argue that bigger and stronger isn't that big of a deal off the tee. No one would confuse Justin Thomas with a big strong dude and he kills it off the tee. Equipment improvements have way more to do with guys hitting it longer and more accurate than anything.

[GrantNKY]

We aren't talking about guys that played in the 60's. This was 10-20 years ago. What sport are guys now better than 10-20 years ago? And to be honest I don't think anyone thinks players are more skilled now at sports just bigger faster stronger. I would say most would argue baseball players of the past were better at the sport then today. Especially the art of hitting.

Every single major sport the players are better today than they were in any prior generation. Even just 10-20 years ago. Baseball is weird because we had the whole steroid era going so who really knows how great those guys were, but I’m not afraid to say it, Mike Trout may be the most talented baseball player to ever walk this earth. I just don’t see how with the information we have available in 2018 we can say that athletes of prior generations are better than the athletes of today.

[GrantNKY]

And I'd argue that bigger and stronger isn't that big of a deal off the tee. No one would confuse Justin Thomas with a big strong dude and he kills it off the tee. Equipment improvements have way more to do with guys hitting it longer and more accurate than anything.

I’ll definitely give you that, equipment has a lot to do with it, but everyone is playing the same equipment on tour today and the volume of really good players is more than it’s ever been in the past. Yeah would it be cool to see how Jack Nicklaus would have played with a modern Driver, sure. Does it mean he would have won more majors with it? No because everyone else would have still been on the same playing field.

[TheDeuce]

I’ll definitely give you that, equipment has a lot to do with it, but everyone is playing the same equipment on tour today and the volume of really good players is more than it’s ever been in the past. Yeah would it be cool to see how Jack Nicklaus would have played with a modern Driver, sure. Does it mean he would have won more majors with it? No because everyone else would have still been on the same playing field.

 

So which is it? Are players better, or are there just more good players? Those are different arguments.

[woodsrider]

Every single major sport the players are better today than they were in any prior generation. Even just 10-20 years ago. Baseball is weird because we had the whole steroid era going so who really knows how great those guys were, but I’m not afraid to say it, Mike Trout may be the most talented baseball player to ever walk this earth. I just don’t see how with the information we have available in 2018 we can say that athletes of prior generations are better than the athletes of today.

No they aren't better. Again, they are bigger faster stronger. That doesn't mean better. I'm talking about skill. What generation you live doesn't factor into skill. And to say players are better today than 10-20 years ago is nonsense. Your talking about the same generation of players in a lot of cases. The best basketball player in the world in the world was playing 10 years ago. The same could be said for just about every position in every sport. Mike Trout may end up being the best ever and if does that doesn't prove your point. 1 player in a generation does mean squat. The vast majority of the top players in the history of baseball are not playing today.

[GrantNKY]

So which is it? Are players better, or are there just more good players? Those are different arguments.

It’s both. Players are better now do to the fact that they have more information and technology at their hands than ever before. There are also way more really good players than ever before.

[TheDeuce]

It’s both. Players are better now do to the fact that they have more information and technology at their hands than ever before. There are also way more really good players than ever before.

 

So the technology makes them better? If that's the case, how can you argue Koepka (example) is better than Tiger (another example) if they have access to the same technology? I'd agree there are more good players, because more people are playing the sport and there's better tech.

 

Also, how are you determining that golfers are better today than they were 20 years ago? What's the measuring stick?

[GrantNKY]

No they aren't better. Again, they are bigger faster stronger. That doesn't mean better. I'm talking about skill. What generation you live doesn't factor into skill. And to say players are better today than 10-20 years ago is nonsense. Your talking about the same generation of players in a lot of cases. The best basketball player in the world in the world was playing 10 years ago. The same could be said for just about every position in every sport. Mike Trout may end up being the best ever and if does that doesn't prove your point. 1 player in a generation does mean squat. The vast majority of the top players in the history of baseball are not playing today.

Yes it does factor into skill. It’s not just training to be bigger, stronger, and faster it’s also the information on things to develop your skills. Especially in a sport like golf. If you gave players from the past the same information and technology as the players from today then it would be easy to debate because they would be on a level playing field. Golf has largely been played on the same courses for a long time so we could just compare scores over a large period of time and see who’s better. We obviously can’t do that.

[GrantNKY]

So the technology makes them better? If that's the case, how can you argue Koepka (example) is better than Tiger (another example) if they have access to the same technology? I'd agree there are more good players, because more people are playing the sport and there's better tech.

 

Also, how are you determining that golfers are better today than they were 20 years ago? What's the measuring stick?

There is no measuring stick. Golfers are better due to the technology and information in 2018. If you give golfers 20-30 years ago that same information they may be as good or better than the players of today. We simply don’t know. But you would have to train each of the golfers from different eras the exact same way, with the exact same technology in order to see a difference. But these young guys on tour now had swing coaches from an extremely young age, they had the best equipment manufactures outfitting them from a young age, they were able to play golf year round no matter what part of the country they were in, there are more tournaments kids can play in now than there were years ago. Everything about the sport has changed so dramatically in a positive way with regards to developing skill that it’s hard to say IMO that golfers aren’t better now than they used to be. I’m not trying to say that if you gave a golfer from a different era the same things golfers now have that they still wouldn’t be as good, but we have no way to compare that.

[TheDeuce]

There is no measuring stick. Golfers are better due to the technology and information in 2018. If you give golfers 20-30 years ago that same information they may be as good or better than the players of today. We simply don’t know. But you would have to train each of the golfers from different eras the exact same way, with the exact same technology in order to see a difference. But these young guys on tour now had swing coaches from an extremely young age, they had the best equipment manufactures outfitting them from a young age, they were able to play golf year round no matter what part of the country they were in, there are more tournaments kids can play in now than there were years ago. Everything about the sport has changed so dramatically in a positive way with regards to developing skill that it’s hard to say IMO that golfers aren’t better now than they used to be. I’m not trying to say that if you gave a golfer from a different era the same things golfers now have that they still wouldn’t be as good, but we have no way to compare that.

 

So the players aren't necessarily better, the technology is better.

[Irish Cat]

Perhaps you could argue that the players of the past were even better than those today since they accomplished more with less. I wonder how much more difficult it would be for Woods or Koepka if they had to play with the same clubs and balls that Johnny Miller had in 1973 when he shot a 63 at Oakmont.

[HammerTime]

DJ is 34 so not under 30. Rickie folds under the pressure every major. Rahm, Dechambeau, and Fleetwood have less than 10 tour wins between and 0 Majors.

 

Stenson is Tigers age, Bubba is 39, and Rose is 38. They are Tigers generation.

 

Like I said, other than Spieth, Rory, and Koepka none of these young guns are dominating majors.

 

Koepka has 1 other tour win outside of majors as well.