The standard of golf

[Alex_narey]

After watching Geoff Ogilvy's fine performance yesterday, I was wondering what your opinions were on how much golf has progressed over the years. Ogilvy seemed to be playing a different game (Casey himself was pretty decent - although he just couldn't sink his opportunities). Although my golfing memory only stretches back to the mid 80s, I can't remember seeing golf to that standard back then - even from Europe's famed 'Big Five'.

Of course, there are so many points to consider, namely the progress made in equipment. But has the standard of our game ever been better?


http://tinyurl.com/cmcoyr

 

[KeefG]

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to watch Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer etc playing in their prime years with todays technologically advanced gear?

It could be argued that the game is now a lot easier, especially for us amatuers anyway. Imagine being an amatuer back in the 60's/70's when you had to be pretty damn good to get even a half decent shot out of the gear they had at their disposal back then.

 

[birdieman]

I think the standard was a little higher about 7 or 8 years ago when Tiger, Duval, Mickelson, Els, Goosen, Love, Singh etc were playing to a better standard than they and the rest of todays best are playing now.

The Arizona course clearly suits Ogilvy's game. He still has to be consistently higer placed in the Majors to be considered a great player. Other than his US open win which was handed to him by both Phil and Monty he hasn't fared in any of the big ones, now he's world No.4 apparently.

 

[SammmeBee]

The Arizona course clearly suits Ogilvy's game. He still has to be consistently higer placed in the Majors to be considered a great player. Other than his US open win which was handed to him by both Phil and Monty he hasn't fared in any of the big ones, now he's world No.4 apparently.

I suppose 2 other WGC wins, along with a second plus a few top 10's in the USPGA in the last 4 years isn't too bad though...

Unfortunately the only chap who can be deemed a 'great' player now is Tiger as there are now too many 'good' players for anyone to make become another Nicklaus, Palmer or Watson....

 

[HarryMonk]

I like you cannot remember much before the mid 80's, and agree the equipment at our current pro's disposel is getting better all the time.

But that said the golf all week was quite something, helped by the heat and altitude making the ball fly futher.

Ogilvy just seemed to hit the middle of every fairway and sink most putts, there was just nothing Casey could do about it on the day.

Now I dont consider Ogilvy to be a great but I dont think Player Nicholas or any of the others in ther prime could have got near the big Aussie, (Although it would have been great to watch them try).

 

[Robobum]

Comparing generations is pointless, Tiger would have been great in the 60s and Jack would have been likewise today.

The depth in quality is significantly better today IMO.

 

[nmartyn]

i thought Casey was just a little unlucky on the day. his approach play was on a par with Ogilvy and considering he usually had another 30/40 yards to the flag following his 3woods from the tee (was his driver broken?) he did really well. had he sunk a couple more putts he would have won, or at least put a lot of pressure on him.

 

[viscount17]

I'm currently reviewing a book for GM (I'll get it to you soon, Jezz) in which the author makes a (repetitive) issue of the fact that the standard hasn't improved since Bobby Jones time.

He quotes some statistics (I'll dig it out tonight) that shows that the percentage of people playing who are 'qualified' to enter top competition is actually lower.

 

[SammmeBee]

He quotes some statistics (I'll dig it out tonight) that shows that the percentage of people playing who are 'qualified' to enter top competition is actually lower.

You'll have to qualify your statment there as I have no idea what you mean.....

 

[Cernunnos]

Bobby Jones was probably a player out of his time. In which I mean he probably has more in common with todays players than he had with his peers at the time when he was about.

Bobby Jones was an athelete in a game that had no atheletes at the time.

If you look at the state of the game these days players spend a lot of time on their fittness & fittness for the game. The game has become more atheletic in nature. Golfers are expected to be fitter.

Probably one of the best modern examples that spearheaded the trend in fitter stronger golfers was Greg Norman.

Now all this fittness is naught without a good standard & potential for a good game. In other words talent. Though I suppose one of the downsides is now that golfers have increased their explosive power, fittness etc, it also seems to have followed that injuries are parr for the course.

It would be interesting to have gone back in time & had some of our current best players play Bobby Jones & his peers of the time with the equipment available at the time. It would also be interesting to see how Those golfers of yesteryear would cope with modern equipment too. With the modern length of some courses too & the changes in Course design & the effect that has on the game in general.

But as I'm saying Bobby Jones wasn't just born in the wrong decade, he was about in the wrong centuary.

I'd bet the clossest we've got to him in the effortless way he plays today is the current winner of the WGC Geoff Ogilvy

Look at footage of Bobby Jones & then That of Ogilvy.
Few (if any) at the time when Bobby Jones were about had the kind of swing he had

 

[USER1999]

I don't think the equipment thing has really affected the very best players (or us amateurs to be honest, having lived through most of the equipment revolutions in the last 20 years, and come out the end still off the same handicap).
Even back in the days of Taylor, Braid and Vardon, Braid was regularly driving it 300 plus. What has changed? Not alot.

In terms of optimising everything to drag the mundane pro's up to the level of the best, the equipment, fitness conditioning, specific coaching (mind and technique), computer analysis, and golf course agronomy has helped level the playing field, but the best will always be the best, whatever generation you put them in. It is just the gap between the truly talented and the rest has been narrowed, giving the effect of a stronger field.

 

[theeaglehunter]

In terms of optimising everything to drag the mundane pro's up to the level of the best, the equipment, fitness conditioning, specific coaching (mind and technique), computer analysis, and golf course agronomy has helped level the playing field, but the best will always be the best, whatever generation you put them in. It is just the gap between the truly talented and the rest has been narrowed, giving the effect of a stronger field.

Exactly what I was going to post and very well put.

Something I would add though is that imho I think the best today would score better than the best from yesteryear not due to equipment in hand but because of the improved coaching / training aids which means that the modern day elite do have better swings / technique than the games forefathers. The methodology of golf has definitely advanced and that is because more effective ways of getting the ball around the course have been discovered. Surely if those at the pinnacle of the game today are no better than those from previous eras they would still be swinging the same. (generally speaking- I know many people have individual swings that are highly effective and inevitably always will have done) The textbook golf swing has changed and that is what gives many top pros today more consistency etc than those preceding them.

 

[AlchemyGolf]

Seve in his pomp with modern equipment would have been a right handful these days.

For me the top pros from each decade are on the whole very comparable (Tiger excluded).The main difference now is the strength in depth throughout the field of a big tournament.This is down to a few things,The equipment is one of the main ones along with the work ethic of the modern professional.

Its gone from finishing a round in the 80s and having a pint afterwards to finishing a round and hitting balls,talking to your psychologist and doing an hour session in the gym.

Certainly when Palmer,Player,Nicklaus,Watson and probably when Seve,Norman,Langer etc were in there heyday maybe there were 25 players capable of winning,if that.Now the whole field is capable of winning and we have started to see the odd real surprise major winner like Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton which you didnt really see in the past.

 

[bobmac]

[/quote The textbook golf swing has changed and that is what gives many top pros today more consistency etc than those preceding them.

[/QUOTE]
Can you explain please?

 

[bobmac]

I agree Alchemy.
The winning scores havent changed dramatically,(forgetting Whatshisname) but the cut mark has gone down. Lots more better players playing well forces the cut below par more often.

 

[USER1999]

Certainly a lot of modern pro's have a very coached swing, such that quite often it is very difficult to tell who is who. I was at the Argentine open 2 years ago, and a succession of young pro's came through the tenth, none of whom I had heard of, with identikit swings, and identikit bleached hair do's and body shapes (6ft plus and honed through hours of gym work).
There wasn't a dodgy swing to be seen, or a beer gut.

 

[SammmeBee]

Seve in his pomp with modern equipment would have been a right handful these days.

I actually disagree completely here - if Seve was playing now, he would just be 'another' golfer....it was because he could manufacture shots that others could not even comprehend with the equipment then....

With todays equipment for the Pros, virtually every shot is just 'hit it straight at 100%'...there is little shot making required these days...

I think also the condition of the golf courses these are SO much better than they were in the 'old days' if you look at some of the greens they had to putt on in old footage, they were horrendous...

 

[Dodger]

got to agree the reason Seve was so good was the shotmaking ability and the movement of the ball which cannot be done to the same extent now,even from when I played as a 16 year old during Seve's era I could move the ball alot easier then that what you can now,you really have to exagerate to get a huge fade/draw now and even then it aint as easy as back then.I think Seve would struggle although possibly his driving may be better!
Pro's do hit it with a straighter shape now but I'm not sure I agree with the greens being better prepared as I can think of half a dozen clubs around my area alone who's greens arnt as good as they where 20 years ago mine included.

 

[USER1999]

The fairways tend to be cut shorter though, so you get a bit more control on the iron shots. Especially around the green.

It is funny that the top players struggle to move the ball as much as they used to, whilst the club player has no trouble what so ever in slicing the ball.

 

[AlchemyGolf]

For me Seve would be a great top player in any era with any clubs.He is my idol and the reason I picked up a golf club in the 1st place.Without him I would never have played golf.

I think your wrong,totally wrong,his shot making would still set him apart today and dont even get me started on his short game.His weakness was his driving and this is where the modern day equipment would make him so much better but hey we all have our own opinions!