When did golf have the strongest field?

[TigerBear]

Some say we are currently living through the most competitive era of golf. So many different major winners, no one player really exerting any sort of real dominance of the game.

But is the current field the strongest we have ever seen in terms of a collective group of top quality talented players?

Or was there generally a stronger field during Tiger's reign or the Golden Bear's heyday, but maybe not so apparent due to their dominance?

Is technology a factor playing its part today, huge 460cc drivers, improved moi and sweet spots to trackman and the advancement of teaching techniques and tools at their disposal, all making it easier for the current crop to excel and play the game.

 

[BiMGuy]

I think the current era has the deepest talent pool. Which makes it much harder for one player to separate themselves from the pack.

It’s not club and ball technology. Most sports and endeavours improve over time. We now have a better understanding of biomechanics, ball flight laws etc.

Club and ball technology helps to a certain extent, but it also helps to keep the field closer. Especially with driver and woods. The larger headed driver and modern ball prevented Tiger from being even more dominant than he was.

 

[Voyager EMH]

1975 to 1985.

The time when Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Watson and many others overlapped with Ballesteros, Faldo, Norman and many more.
Hugely competitive time and very memorable and exciting tournaments played.
Very many truly great players around in those times.

 

[D-S]

It has to be now.
The base of the pyramid is greater, more players from more course in more countries. There are more colleges and universities with dedicated golf programmes all over the world and there are now quite a few schools offering golf performance coaching. This coupled with greater riches at the top level mean that more and better athletes are attracted to the professional game.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

1975 to 1985.

The time when Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Watson and many others overlapped with Ballesteros, Faldo, Norman and many more.
Hugely competitive time and very memorable and exciting tournaments played.
Very many truly great players around in those times.

Brings to mind the BBC Pro Celeb golf match at Gleneagles when Trevino was partnered with a 21yr old Seve. Walking between shots Trevino was speaking with Alliss and glowing in his praise and admiration about Seve, how brilliant the young man was - better than himself, but he could still beat Seve because Seve hadn’t quite yet fully learned how to grind things out that only comes through experience. But when he has that…

Great days.

 

[AussieKB]

Brings to mind the BBC Pro Celeb golf match at Gleneangles when Trevino was partnered with a 21yr old Seve. Walking between shots Trevino was speaking with Alliss and glowing in his praise and admiration about Seve, how brilliant the young man was - better than himself, but he could still beat Seve because Seve hadn’t quite yet fully learned how to grind things out that only comes through experience. But when he has that…

Great days.

I remember the series with great pleasure, always a treat to listen to Lee tell you what he was going to do before he played the shot.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Really tough to judge as with all sports

Things in sport advance through technology and science , players become stronger and fitter and more skillful

But if you look at eras with “depth” then i would go for right now

I started following golf early 80’s and it was the strong European players - Seve , Faldo , Lyle , Langer etc all winning majors. The US had the likes of Watson , Floyd , Crenshaw , Strange , Stewart - but we didn’t really see too many of those players outside the majors

90’s tail end of Faldo but it was mainly a lot of under the radar yanks winning majors , and single wins only , Els and Price came through

Then 00’s and Woods dominated the Majors , with Mickleson chipping in

Then the 10’s until now

Think its 5 multiple major winners in that period

When a major starts the following are amongst the favourites

Rahm
Rory
Speith
Thomas
Koepka
Scheffler
Morikawa
Smith
BDC
Fitzpatrick

Then a whole list of players who haven’t won a major yet but clearly have the ability

So yes right now the strength in depth is very deep - if someone wins a major they have beaten a lot of strong players

 

[AussieKB]

With all sports I think the strongest is now, and will be stronger again next year and the year after, the amount of money in all sports has changed them into career moves.

 

[Backsticks]

1975 to 1985.

The time when Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Watson and many others overlapped with Ballesteros, Faldo, Norman and many more.
Hugely competitive time and very memorable and exciting tournaments played.
Very many truly great players around in those times.

I would say it is stronger now.

Those guys were great golfers, but golf was not as global a game as it is now. It really only broke out of Americans in the 70s. Part of why Jack, Trevino, Watson, were able to accumulate majors.

We didnt have German, Japanese, Spanish players winning majors. Even British winners were sporadic. Ireland had 1 major win in a hundred years. They have had 5 players winning 10 majors in the last 15 years. So the standard from all corners is much higher.
The American majors were almost exclusively for Americans up to the mid 80s. Partly, the rest of the world didnt have many challengers worthy of being there, partly American protectionism.

Now, there are truly world xlass players from all over the world, and the challenge that 10th to 100th best pose is much closer to the top 10 than it was in those days.

 

[AussieKB]

I would say it is stronger now.

Those guys were great golfers, but golf was not as global a game as it is now. It really only broke out of Americans in the 70s. Part of why Jack, Trevino, Watson, were able to accumulate majors.

We didnt have German, Japanese, Spanish players winning majors. Even British winners were sporadic. Ireland had 1 major win in a hundred years. They have had 5 players winning 10 majors in the last 15 years. So the standard from all corners is much higher.
The American majors were almost exclusively for Americans up to the mid 80s. Partly, the rest of the world didnt have many challengers worthy of being there, partly American protectionism.

Now, there are truly world xlass players from all over the world, and the challenge that 10th to 100th best pose is much closer to the top 10 than it was in those days.

When Bobby Locke was at his best and went and played there, they basically drove him away by not making him feel welcome, Peter Thompson hated the atmosphere, funny enough he went back for the Champions Tour and won more money in one year then he did for winning 5 Open's.

 

[Hobbit]

I’d love to say it was late 60’s through the 70’s. Great golf, great personalities and some phenomenal golf with poorer technology. It definitely wasn’t the early 00’s, that was dominated by Tiger. Absolutely loved seeing him destroy a course and the field but it was also a procession akin to formula 1.

For me, the strength in depth on the PGA tour at present sees it light years ahead of previous eras.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I would say it is stronger now.

Those guys were great golfers, but golf was not as global a game as it is now. It really only broke out of Americans in the 70s. Part of why Jack, Trevino, Watson, were able to accumulate majors.

We didnt have German, Japanese, Spanish players winning majors. Even British winners were sporadic. Ireland had 1 major win in a hundred years. They have had 5 players winning 10 majors in the last 15 years. So the standard from all corners is much higher.
The American majors were almost exclusively for Americans up to the mid 80s. Partly, the rest of the world didnt have many challengers worthy of being there, partly American protectionism.

Now, there are truly world xlass players from all over the world, and the challenge that 10th to 100th best pose is much closer to the top 10 than it was in those days.

Ah, the years when golf was not a global game.

US Open 1895 to 1910. Sixteen years in a row when the winner was from England, Scotland and Jersey (H. Vardon). Americans did not get a look-in.
And then another 4 US Open wins for England, Scotland and Jersey (Ted Ray) in the 1920s.

From 1949 to 1978 two South Africans and an Australian won 18 majors between them.

In the 1960s an Argentinian and a New Zealander won the British Open.

World population has increased along with greater number of countries and players participating. So the difference that has made is obvious.
50 or 100 years ago golf was what it was - different from today.
Best 50 or so golfers competing against each other - not much difference with regard to "strength of field".
Great skilful golfers in all eras.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Brings to mind the BBC Pro Celeb golf match at Gleneagles when Trevino was partnered with a 21yr old Seve. Walking between shots Trevino was speaking with Alliss and glowing in his praise and admiration about Seve, how brilliant the young man was - better than himself, but he could still beat Seve because Seve hadn’t quite yet fully learned how to grind things out that only comes through experience. But when he has that…

Great days.

Seve clearly had natural talent as a boy, but I'm sure he learned a lot from playing with the more seasoned players.
In 1978 at age 21 he was partnered with Player (42 years old) for the final round at Augusta when Player made 7 birdies in the final 10 holes to come from way back to win.
I think Seve learned a lot that day.
Two years later Seve won the Masters. Won The Open in between.

 

[Imurg]

Trying to compare eras in any sport is a fool's errand........

 

[Robster59]

The base is broader now, but the equipment is better, more forgiving, longer, so it is difficult. The courses weren't as well manicured and so (IMHO), the older golfers had more challenges to face. There are more golfers coming through College and so there is a bigger pool to pull from now. But I wonder how they would handle the equipment and playing conditions that the older golfers had to encounter.

 

[Backsticks]

The equipment is irrelevant to the competition element. There are more better golfers now than any any other time. Thats is due to affluence and the game growing globally, and so pulling from a wider pool of talent. Golf was a better game pre 2000, but has less competition in the top end of the elites.

 

[Crow]

The question is "strongest field", which to me means the highest scoring level if everyone from every era was available to play against each other at the same time.
Due to the professionalism of today's golfers and the intensity of training in every aspect of the game, today's golfers would wipe the floor with nearly everyone from the past, so I say now.

Yes, if the golfers from the past were given the same time to practice, access to backroom staff and facilities etc, they might be able to match the players of today, but that's not the question.

 

[Voyager EMH]

My interpretation of "strongest field" is this,

In a major comp in a particular year we've always had a few who seem "at the top". This might be 3 or 4 of them or it might be 10 or 12 of them.
How close behind them are the next 50?

Well it seems to me that in the 1975 to 1985 era that I mentioned earlier, there were very many great players around in the 50 below the favourites capable of winning a major and they were not far behind the best 10 or so.
This made it a strong field and many of the major comps were very exciting and memorable.

It is quite similar today, but the 50 or so chasing the best 10 or so "at the top" does not seem to include enough truly great players to me.
So over the last ten years the field has not appeared to be as strong to me as typical majors in the 1975/85 era.

Don't care in the slightest bit about those about to pull this perception of mine to bits.
Your perception is yours and mine is mine.

 

[sunshine]

The question is "strongest field", which to me means the highest scoring level if everyone from every era was available to play against each other at the same time.
Due to the professionalism of today's golfers and the intensity of training in every aspect of the game, today's golfers would wipe the floor with nearly everyone from the past, so I say now.

Yes, if the golfers from the past were given the same time to practice, access to backroom staff and facilities etc, they might be able to match the players of today, but that's not the question.

This is clearly the right answer, and I think it hold true for the majority of sports. The field is full of athletic players like Lydia Ko and Nellie Korda who are miles ahead of Nancy Lopez, Laura Davies and other golfers of the past.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I think late 80's into the early 90's was very strong. You had loads of US stars, the European/Brit contingent, Aussies like Norman a few big name Japanese, a few South Africans