The standard of golf

[rgs]

Its difficult to compare the greats in any sport from different eras.

A lot of things have changed--fitness levels are better, courses are better prepared, equipment is better.

The best thing to do is enjoy the greats of today in the way we enjoyed the greats of our youth.

 

[Marko77]

The standard in terms of scoring? yes, but then I feel its a bit of a false economy as the courses (with except the US Open, Open, USPGA) are all geared up to allow low scoring.

The standard of player has probably always been around the same (bloody good!!)

 

[Marko77]

I don't know if this can be related to this discussion or not but,

1929, Bobby Jones wins the US Open at Winged Foot with a winning score of 294. 2006, Geoff Ogilvy, at the same course, with a score of 285. Both great achievements by great players.

I can't put the 9 shots (quite a difference!!) down to Ogilvy being a much better player?

 

[Cernunnos]

I don't know if this can be related to this discussion or not but,

1929, Bobby Jones wins the US Open at Winged Foot with a winning score of 294. 2006, Geoff Ogilvy, at the same course, with a score of 285. Both great achievements by great players.

I can't put the 9 shots (quite a difference!!) down to Ogilvy being a much better player?

I'm sure the winged foot of 2006 has changed a lot since the Winged foot of 1929. any player is going to get a different score every time they play a course. Even something as simple can change the way a course plays & the sort of scores attained. Both courses may have been called Winged foot, but each would have been different to the other. There really are too many variables to compare the Bobby Jones performance in 1929 to that of Geoff Ogilvy in 2006. Levels of fitness as a standard. Tee positions. Pin Positions, Changes in hazard positions in relation to equipment performance. Equipment performance, relating to trajectory, run out etc. Even clothing in relation flexability issues related to performance. Bobby Jones was clearly an atheletic player & had a high degree of flexibility, but his clothing would have effected him. Weather conditions would effect the ball. Hell, the ball then is most certainly different to todays ball. There really is little way of really comparing one player from another era with another from another era as far as exact scores being a relation to performance.

So in short we cannot really say this player or that was better or worse, especially when even a supposed none variable, is more variable than we might at first imagine.

 

[viscount17]

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 statement there as I have no idea what you mean.....

a day late but . . .

the author states: "As early as nineteen-thirty Bobby Jones observed that in the USA alone, some seven and a half million people were actively playing golf of which, in his (Jones) opinion, perhaps one in twenty (.00005%) deserved an expert rating (those qualified to play at championship level)." A number which the author, from details of the US championships, believes to be have been optimistically high.

he later states that 'the world's golfers both male and female deserving of an expert rating (today) comprise just .00003 per cent of all who play.'

for this state of affairs the author blames almost equally, instructors, instruction and the golfer; the latter for his unwillingness or inability to learn, the former for deviating from the paths of truth as decreed by Bobby Jones, Harvey Penick, Ben Hogan and Tommy Armour.

(my italics)