News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #225 on: November 10, 2019, 11:20:02 PM »
Erik,


Do you believe that Bernhard Langer is a better golfer now than he was 30 years ago?

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #226 on: November 11, 2019, 03:04:24 AM »

Indeed, the question is also raised are there more top class players now or is it the advance in equipment, training and playing conditions that have allowed many players who are less able to compete better with those who are better? In the end most people judge greatness in sport on the results in major competitions which points to Jack as the GOAT. Trying to judge different players of different eras is in my opinion a fools errand but what can be said is Tiger is certainly the Greatest Of His Era of which there have also been few. Woods, Nicklaus, Hogan, Jones, Vardon, Morris.


Erik,


some really interesting links. Thanks

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #227 on: November 11, 2019, 03:15:12 AM »
Jon

At the end of the day of course you are right. It is the constant probing to judge who is better which has led to the rise of analytics. Of course, for a club manager having the best available analytics can be of great help when it comes to trade or contract time, even if the science is still very wanting in many ways. However, I am far more skeptical about applying analytics retrospectively and across eras. It is easy to draw conclusions based on modern interpretations because this is often the overwhelming PoV available in the media.

Lets put it this way, who was better is not a hill I am going to die on.

Happy Hockey
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 03:19:10 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Dunfanaghy, Fraserburgh, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #228 on: November 11, 2019, 06:21:49 AM »


Lets put it this way, who was better is not a hill I am going to die on.

Happy Hockey



 ;D

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #229 on: November 11, 2019, 09:06:43 AM »
Tyrrell Hatton's strokes gained for the Turkish Airlines thing this week:


Driving -0.96
Approach +10.48
Short game +4.36
Putting -2.04


Granted that's somewhat unusual. The way I think of it is generally speaking, your long game dictates the range that your scores will fall in, while your short game dictates where in that range it falls on a given day. There are no 100 shooters who are going to suddenly start shooting 70 because they get a tour pro short game. There are 100 shooters who would start to shoot 70 if they got a tour pro long game.


Tiger has won 82 tournaments in large part because of his long game. Now, it's also true to say that to be as good as he has been, you have to be good at all of it. Tiger's putting, short game, approach and driving have all been pretty darn good. The approach is where the biggest impact has come from though. People think it's his putting because it's the last thing they see. Truth is he holes a lot of birdie putts because he gives himself a lot of opportunities to do so. He does that with his approach play.

Peter Pallotta

Re: 82
« Reply #230 on: November 11, 2019, 09:26:31 AM »
As Jon suggested earlier, Erik and Rob are both right:
Rob's original statement/advice was to me, an average golfer. Sure, he said, work on your driving and iron play, but if you want to score meaningfully better, practice much more your short game and putting and shots from 100 yards in. And he's right. I'd love to strike the ball better, but if I add up my scores the bulk of the shots lost come with the 'short game'.  Meanwhile, yes, okay: I'll defer to the latest 'analytics' when it comes to the best golfers in the world; except for the outliers, i.e. great ball strikers but notoriously bad putters or vice-versa, across the board the short games are stellar so I can see iron play/longer approach shots being a key to scoring best in the pro world. Of course, that only makes the JN-TW debate more complicated: JN was particularly strong, it seems to me, with his long and mid irons -- he could hit the green all day long and two putt to his heart's content, especially in majors.   

« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 09:28:03 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #231 on: November 11, 2019, 10:17:08 AM »
In the end most people judge greatness in sport on the results in major competitions which points to Jack as the GOAT.
I don't agree with that. In my long-running poll, it's 3:1 in favor of Tiger Woods, and the poll (and over 90% of the votes) pre-date his 15th major win by eight years.

Michael, good post on the side topic.

Rob's original statement/advice was to me, an average golfer. Sure, he said, work on your driving and iron play, but if you want to score meaningfully better, practice much more your short game and putting and shots from 100 yards in. And he's right. I'd love to strike the ball better, but if I add up my scores the bulk of the shots lost come with the 'short game'.

That may be true for YOU — specifically, one person — but it is not true at all for the general class of golfers like you. It's just not. See the "amateurs" link above. And I've got my own studies and things on this, and access to data sets with millions of holes played.

The average golfer - right on up to the average PGA Tour pro - loses shots compared to those better than him primarily through the "long game" (stuff outside of 100 yards, NOT "distance").
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #232 on: November 11, 2019, 10:33:57 AM »
Each time these analytics come up, I commit to reading the book(s) and being better prepared to discuss...


Those stats on Hatton crystallized it for me, I guess...he clearly had a tremendous week hitting the ball near the hole.


My question continues to be...are these stats designed to help us figure out who is the best at a certain aspect? Or are they designed to help us figure out what to do to improve?

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #233 on: November 11, 2019, 10:44:30 AM »
My question continues to be...are these stats designed to help us figure out who is the best at a certain aspect? Or are they designed to help us figure out what to do to improve?
Can’t it be both?
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #234 on: November 11, 2019, 10:58:40 AM »
Did anyone watch the seniors this week? It was won with clutch pitches, wedge shots and putts. It was lost by a missed 4 footer after a great pitch. Maggert made some great pressure putts in regulation. Made a great up and down from up against the collar.


The OT discussion I started was how can "Peter" have a better chance to break 70. He was concentrating on hitting draws and fades. You don't need to do that to break 70. It certainly won't hurt either.


Your average Am can shave strokes off his game the fastest working on his short game. Again IMO from my own game and experience. I really don't care about the pro's stats. We weren't talking about the pros.



I'm a fairly proficient ball striker. I know where I lose shots. You can work on your long game all day long but it's much easier IMO to get better at the short game. It also takes a lot less time and physical ability

I'll trust Bob Rotella
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 11:03:14 AM by Rob Marshall »
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #235 on: November 11, 2019, 11:19:18 AM »

Erik



I think for 95+% of established (non-beginner) players, no...

I delineate between established and beginners because you need to teach all aspects of the game to beginners.


I'm 45 and a scratch handicap...have 4 active kids and little time or interest in practice. When I do think about improving my golf, it's primarily through low impact exercise and stretching AND wedges/pitching/putting because the rhythm of those shots carries over to longer shots. If you wanted to measurably improve my ball striking, you'd lose me as a customer (and I wouldn't improve) in short order because the work involved is beyond my bandwidth...


If you showed me a few short game shots to work on and maybe discussed strategy around the golf course, I can see and feel the improvement. Once I've cut those few shots off my game and you and I took another look at how I can improve...I'm still too old and challenged to decide a couple thousand hours on the driving range are needed.


If you're talking about helping a 90 shooter get to 80 consistently, it will have to be some of both...your stats (or maybe those links are Broadie's?) indicate 2/3 long game and 1/3 short game (100 yards and in). I disagree with this entirely, primarily because in real life, the effort to go from a 90 ball striker to an 80 ball striker is exponentially more difficult than the same route in short game and strategy improvement

Peter Pallotta

Re: 82
« Reply #236 on: November 11, 2019, 11:29:53 AM »
An aside:
I'm suspicious. I trust no one these days.
I used to trust the 'experts' too easily; it's been my downfall.
When I first took up the game, the experts told me that good players can hit every shot in the bag, and work the ball both ways. So instead of just trying to develop some kind of basic & repeatable swing, I set off instead on the arduous (and, for a fellow in his 30s, ultimately depressing) task of being 'a good player' -- only to realize later that Monty won dozens of times using nothing but a fade except in the most extreme cases, and Calc won a whole boatload of money hitting nothing but a draw.
Luckily (ha ha) just then the former NASA engineer Dave Pelz came to prominence loaded with an armful of stats and told me that I should buy 6 wedges and put a metronome on my putter so I could time and measure my backstroke - you know, one-two for a 6 foot putt, one-two-three for my 10 foot putt, etc: and the result was that I got so inside my own head that whatever natural, intuitive skills and abilities I had went out the window.
(Not a word of a lie: a friend and good golfer I first started playing with nick-named me "Chips" after our first few rounds together -- because, while I sprayed the ball all over the course, back then I could get up and down from just about everywhere, and with nothing but instinct and feel. He still calls me "Chips" to this day, but now it feels like a cruel joke!).
And in music: the 'experts told me at every turn to remember that Charlie Parker could play in every key, and so again I set off not to get some good basic technique and start making music but instead on a futile quest (for someone who started playing in his 30s) to gain mastery in all keys -- only to just recently discover that, while of course Bird could play in every key, at least 70% of the tunes he ever wrote and played were basic blues, and in the 3 *easiest* keys for the clarinet & sax, Bflat, F, and C!
So now the experts tell me: no no, you don't suck because you can't make a putt outside of 5 feet -- we were wrong about that, but now we're *right* about this. Really; we're sure we are. Trust us. (Ha ha.) Just replace your 10 degree driver with a (brand new) 12 degree driver, swap your 3 wood for a 4 wood; and take your 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 irons out of the bag and put in modern 18, 20, 23, 25, and 27 degree hybrids (oh, and you'll hit them much further), and then get out on the range and spend 3 hours hitting balls -- without turning your hips (no, turn your hips but don't dip your shoulder; no, dip your shoulder a lot but create torque with a big turn....oh, and don't lift your left heel off the ground, unless you *do* lift your left heel off the ground, and then you should finish up on your toes).
No. Thank you. I trust no one, and no stat -- at least none from the last 40 years.
I've got on my desk right now two books: Play Golf the Wright Way, by Mickey Wright; and Swing Easy-Hit Hard, by Julius Boros.
That's it. Come spring, I'm just going to go "play golf'.

(Wow, that rolled out in barely the time it took to type, with no thought whatsoever. Man, it must've been pent up inside me for years. Thank you for listening. I feel better now)


 

 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 11:35:30 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #237 on: November 11, 2019, 11:36:29 AM »
Rob, my last attempt, but if you're going to stick your head in the sand, by all means, I'm done trying to pull it out after this.

Did anyone watch the seniors this week? It was won with clutch pitches, wedge shots and putts. It was lost by a missed 4 footer after a great pitch. Maggert made some great pressure putts in regulation. Made a great up and down from up against the collar.
You're seeing what you want to see, and you're also weighting a winner against everything else.

To put it another way, generally speaking, a great week of ball striking gets you into the top fifteen to top five. The hot putter out of those 5 to 15 guys often wins. Getting a "hot" putter is not a reproducible skill, and putting performance (because it's so binary) fluctuates the most round to round while still remaining the smallest contributor overall to strokes gained (or lost).

On the PGA Tour, on the Champions Tour, and on the local course during league night.

BTW, the tournament was finally "won" with a hole-out from the fairway for an eagle on a par four. No short game or putting involved. Also, Maggert was T6 in GIR and T9 in putting.

If you want to over-weight putting because it's the last thing you do on a hole, be my guest. Or if you want to over-weight the short game because someone missed a chip, also, be my guest. But those are incredibly, incredibly small sample sizes, and you're not doing the slightest bit to pull your own head out of the sand.

The OT discussion I started was how can "Peter" have a better chance to break 70. He was concentrating on hitting draws and fades. You don't need to do that to break 70. It certainly won't hurt either.
Nobody's really talked about that. No, you don't need to do that. We recommend actually that people get great with one shot shape rather than "okay" with two or three.

Your average Am can shave strokes off his game the fastest working on his short game.
That's a very, very different statement. I've never said otherwise, too. But, those strokes you can shave "quickly" will be limited to only a few strokes. The average 90s golfer is not going to shoot in the 70s working on the short game and putting. Odds are he'll shave only a few strokes: if he shoots 95 and wants to shoot 75, about 6 or 7 shots at most will come from improving the short game and putting.


Again IMO from my own game and experience. I really don't care about the pro's stats. We weren't talking about the pros.
Uhm…

Did anyone watch the seniors this week?

We aren't?

And if you look above, Tyrell Hatton won on the European Tour in spite of his poor putting performance. Thing is, I'm not going to hold that up as much more than an example, because ultimately even four rounds is a very, very small sample size. His performance was an outlier. Though we see more wins from players who lose putting strokes than from wins from people who lose strokes with their approach shots, the truth is we occasionally (rarely) see them. Because outliers can happen.

Did you look at the amateur stats I gave you earlier?
http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-6-7.png

33% of the strokes differences between the three levels of amateur golfers there were from the short game and putting (combined). The other 67%? Full swing stuff. The numbers are really quite consistent from PGA Tour players right on up to 110 shooters. The average 110 golfer loses 40 shots to an average 70s shooter… so about 33% of those come from the short game and putting. The rest - the full swing.


I'm a fairly proficient ball striker. I know where I lose shots.

Maybe you do. We can't talk about one specific person here, unless you've been routinely logging your rounds with a GAME Golf or something over time.

Individuals can vary — it's not like literally every golfer compares at these 67%/33% numbers across the board — but the masses have given us tremendous data.


You can work on your long game all day long but it's much easier IMO to get better at the short game. It also takes a lot less time and physical ability

Which is why it has a lower "Separation Value®".


I'll trust Bob Rotella

He's a sports psychologist. Mark Broadie has a PhD (from Stanford) as well, you know.


I think for 95+% of established (non-beginner) players, no...

I don't know what that means. I am saying that we can use data to both tell us what has happened and how best someone should spend their time and effort to improve.

I delineate between established and beginners because you need to teach all aspects of the game to beginners.

Of course.

I'm 45 and a scratch handicap...have 4 active kids and little time or interest in practice. When I do think about improving my golf, it's primarily through low impact exercise and stretching AND wedges/pitching/putting because the rhythm of those shots carries over to longer shots. If you wanted to measurably improve my ball striking, you'd lose me as a customer (and I wouldn't improve) in short order because the work involved is beyond my bandwidth...

That's you, and that's adding restraints. You're pre-determining the outcome by saying "I won't do A or B, only X and Y."

If you wanted to get to a +3, odds are you're not going to get there by working on your short game and putting (you could if you were scratch and short game/putting was a glaring weakness. For example, my daughter is a 1.4 index as a junior in high school… and she regularly takes 35, 36, 37 putts… and not because she's hitting greens but leaving herself 45 feet all the time. She can shave a few strokes, and will, by improving her putting. But she's an outlier, too.).
If you showed me a few short game shots to work on and maybe discussed strategy around the golf course, I can see and feel the improvement. Once I've cut those few shots off my game and you and I took another look at how I can improve...I'm still too old and challenged to decide a couple thousand hours on the driving range are needed.

Again, restraints that force the answer you seem to want to hear.

And that's fine - if you have no reason to need to get to a +3 and you're content to be about what you are, or don't have the time, or "bandwidth," carry on. This isn't about making everyone do something. It's just there as a tool for those who want to use it intelligently - which means with adaptations to be applied to the individual. If gaining 20 yards off the tee will lead to the most improvement in your scores but you're 73 and you're simply not gonna get 20 yards, then it's beyond pointless to keep saying that and trying to get those yards.
If you're talking about helping a 90 shooter get to 80 consistently, it will have to be some of both...your stats (or maybe those links are Broadie's?) indicate 2/3 long game and 1/3 short game (100 yards and in). I disagree with this entirely, primarily because in real life, the effort to go from a 90 ball striker to an 80 ball striker is exponentially more difficult than the same route in short game and strategy improvement

This is the stuff I don't get.


Of course it's more difficult. That's why the full swing has a higher Separation Value® than putting and the short game. The 90s shooter is NOT gonna get there just by working on his short game and putting. If 10 shots separate them, they'll gain about 3.3 working on those things. They'll get the other 6.7 from the full swing.

You can't really "disagree" with stats. They just are what they are. You can disagree with how they're interpreted, but if you think the average 90s golfer is going to shave 10 shots from their short game and putting, the stats say they'd have to have the short game and putting of a guy who averages 60s, because those 30 shots * 0.33 is about the ten shots you're looking to shave.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #238 on: November 11, 2019, 11:41:47 AM »
I'm suspicious. I trust no one these days.
Science advances. Knowledge advances. We know more, can measure more, and have a better understanding as time goes by. With better tools.

Hogan played primarily a fade. Snead primarily a draw. Better to be a king of one thing than a jack of all.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #239 on: November 11, 2019, 12:15:38 PM »
Each time these analytics come up, I commit to reading the book(s) and being better prepared to discuss...


Those stats on Hatton crystallized it for me, I guess...he clearly had a tremendous week hitting the ball near the hole.


My question continues to be...are these stats designed to help us figure out who is the best at a certain aspect? Or are they designed to help us figure out what to do to improve?


I think it's two completely different questions. Why is Dustin Johnson so much better than me for example. He's so much better than me because his long game is much better than mine. His short game is better and his putting is better too, but most of it is from his long game. You and I by the way are pretty similar to each other. I'm a couple of years younger than you, about the same handicap and I have two small kids and very little time to practice.


For me to improve by a shot or two, I think I need to understand where my shortcomings are. For me (specifically me), my shortcomings lean more towards my short game and putting relative to my peer group. Other scratch golfers are on average a bit worse than me long game, but better than me short game and putting. So there is some likelihood that working on my short game and putting will have the most "bang for my buck". Improving my long game significantly from where I am would take a lot of hard work, dedication and no small amount of making sure I'm working on the right things.


To put that another way, the majority of the difference between me and DJ might well be long game, but there is no amount of work I can put in that will have me hitting my driver as well as he does. There is nothing (apart from my back, but that's another story) that's stopping me from putting as well as he does. So the why am I so much worse than him question is long game, but the what should I work on question is short game/putting.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #240 on: November 11, 2019, 12:22:16 PM »
Maggert holed the shot with a wedge........after making clutch putts he had to have and some great pitches to keep his chances alive.


Dr. Bob Rotella is indeed a sports psychologist who has worked with top pro and am's. He also happens to be a PhD. I'll stick with his advice even though he didn't go to Stanford.



Jim, Great post. I'm 57, float around scratch and have been exactly where you are. However I do love to practice.



« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 12:25:38 PM by Rob Marshall »
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #241 on: November 11, 2019, 12:29:34 PM »
In the end most people judge greatness in sport on the results in major competitions which points to Jack as the GOAT.
I don't agree with that. In my long-running poll, it's 3:1 in favor of Tiger Woods, and the poll (and over 90% of the votes) pre-date his 15th major win by eight years.




I recall a few years back a BBC arts programme ran a poll to determine the best album of all time, and they had Bob Geldof on as a guest to review the results. It was very funny seeing how apoplectic he got when they unveiled the Stone Roses first album beating the Beatles White Album into second place. Personally I much prefer the Stone Roses but I don't doubt they won because the were relatively current.


Niall

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #242 on: November 11, 2019, 12:59:53 PM »

Niall,


that is because regardless of the question popularity will play a big part and in the case of the golf discussion it is difficult for anyone born after 1980 to really appreciate how good Jack was where as Tiger has been hyped constantly by the press. It is certainly a close call but what I don't buy is there are more better players now than before.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #243 on: November 11, 2019, 01:20:35 PM »
Jon,


Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #244 on: November 11, 2019, 01:34:06 PM »
Erik,


How much of that 67% long game potential improvement do you allocate to strategy and shot selection?

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #245 on: November 11, 2019, 01:37:48 PM »
I really appreciate the analytics Erik has posted on this thread.

As a side note, i've been doing my own analysis on what correlates best to winners on the PGA Tour for the 2018-2019 season. I was thinking about starting a different thread but perhaps I can put the results here.

I looked at 5 different categories: Driving Distance, Driving Accuracy, GIR, Scrambling, and Total Putting.  I then looked at winners to see how they ranked against everyone else on tour for last season.  I came up with the following:

The following is the % of winners on tour last year that were in the top 50%
- Driving Distance - 76.2%
- GIR's - 64.3%
- Total Putting - 59.5%
- Scrambling - 57.1%
- Driving Accuracy - 50%

Driving Distance was by far and away the best correlation of the 5 categories I looked at.  And as a subcategory breakdown, over half of last years winners on tour, (52.4%), were in the top 25% in Driving Distance.  Meanwhile only 19% of winners were in the top 25% in Driving Accuracy...

Peter Pallotta

Re: 82
« Reply #246 on: November 11, 2019, 01:39:47 PM »
Jon,

Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?
As a society, in North America (but even globally) we are wealthier than ever -- and many more young people can 'afford' to chase a dream, especially a dream that pays-off exponentially more handsomely than it once did. But that doesn't necessarily mean they *should* be pursuing that dream (Maybe they should, maybe they are *all* in fact that good -- I simply don't know.) But maybe back in the 50s and 60s (and certainly the 30s and 40s), would-be pros understood/realized this better, understood the odds against real success and realized the true quality of their games better than they do today -- because they *had* to.
Who is to say that a (relatively) large number of very good players back then didn't decide not to even try to make a go for it, and instead went straight into teaching and club pro jobs (like Harvey Penick said he did right after the first time he heard the sound that a Sam Snead iron shot made). Even JN himself was set to continue making a better living selling insurance until he realized he could indeed make more playing golf (but only if he was the best of the best). All of which is to say: 'math' is useful, but I wouldn't want it swinging my golf club for me with money on the line.
 
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 01:42:45 PM by Peter Pallotta »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #247 on: November 11, 2019, 01:44:49 PM »
But could you use it in the context of survival of the fittest?


Remember, I was responding to Jon wondering if the players are actually better today...not the question of Jack versus Tiger...or even if a 22 year old kid should try to make a living playing.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #248 on: November 11, 2019, 01:51:25 PM »
Jon,

Does the mathematics part of that statement ring true? If there are multiples of the number of players actually pursuing the career via different wordwide tours, as well as the creation and growth of the developmental game via college and high school...doesn't it stand to reason that the top players emerging out of those levels would be better?


Jim,

It certainly does not ring true.  Introducing more people to the game is always going to strengthen fields not weaken them.  Look at Basketball as an example.  Just a few decades ago, there were few international players in the NBA, and in international competitions top college kids regularly and easily beat the best from other countries. 

Now with massive amounts of exposure that kicked off with the Dream Team in 92, the NBA and NCAA is chock full with top notch International talent, and there are far less US based players getting in the league.  Wider selection, more players, better competition.

Peter Pallotta

Re: 82
« Reply #249 on: November 11, 2019, 01:52:40 PM »
I honestly don't think so, Jim.
It seems to me that 'survival of the fittest' applies in the context of scarcity. And we have today via the many pro & developmental tours the very opposite of scarcity.
If there were only 125 professional spots available in the entire world, and yet ever more millions of young golfers fighting for those few spots, then I think 'survival of the fittest' would apply, i.e. the 'math' would make sense to me.
But the opposite is the case: yes, there are more golfers/would-be pros coming out of American colleges now than ever, and more than ever from Europe and Asia too. But on the other hand, there are 'spots' available now (on the various tours and feeder tours and sub-feeder tours etc) that were never available in JN'd day (ie not too distant past).
In short: yes, many more golfers are 'surviving', but that doesn't necessarily tell me that they are the fittest, or even that they are fit.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 01:54:48 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back