Are we entering Into the age of parity on the PGA Tour?

[LICC]

> @SuperQuad said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> >

> > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

>

> No, but feel like with this statement you're listing off some of the top players over at least a 20 year stretch. All those players were not at their peak at the same time. Not a fair comparison to the Tour in 2019.

>

> Is the strength of the Tour greater in 2019 than it was specifically in 1989, for example? Would have to say yes.

 

I grouped them in the 1990s and 1980s with the “or” in between.

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> >

> > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

>

> Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

 

The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

[LICC]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> >

> > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

>

>

> I think the top 20 are similar or slightly better than the top 20 of old. I think the bottom 80 are leaps and bounds better than the bottom 80 from couples Era

 

 

Why? There is no good reason to think the top 80 aren’t comparable.

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > >

> > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> >

> > Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> > Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> > Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> > Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> > Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> > As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

>

> The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

 

No thats not how it works. Longer guys got disproportionately longer, shorter guys we know like Justin Leonard disappeared

[pinhigh27]

> @LICC said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > >

> > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> >

> >

> > I think the top 20 are similar or slightly better than the top 20 of old. I think the bottom 80 are leaps and bounds better than the bottom 80 from couples Era

>

>

> Why? There is no good reason to think the top 80 aren’t comparable.

 

re-read what I said. it's the bottom 80. the depth is notably improved. look how much 100th ranked guy makes now vs in 1985. instruction is way improved, kids start younger, tiger got people into golf. all sports become more competitive with time except ones where there is no incentive to do well. the crop continually improves

[pinhigh27]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > > >

> > > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> > >

> > > Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> > > Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> > > Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> > > Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> > > Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> > > As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

> >

> > The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

>

> No thats not how it works. Longer guys got disproportionately longer, shorter guys we know like Justin Leonard disappeared

 

says who? I've never understood this argument. 3 % longer is slightly different at 300 vs 270 but it's a yard of relative difference. in reality there is no significant difference and it helps everyone.

[JD3]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> > > >

> > > > Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> > > > Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> > > > Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> > > > Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> > > > Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> > > > As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

> > >

> > > The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

> >

> > No thats not how it works. Longer guys got disproportionately longer, shorter guys we know like Justin Leonard disappeared

>

> says who? I've never understood this argument. 3 % longer is slightly different at 300 vs 270 but it's a yard of relative difference. in reality there is no significant difference and it helps everyone.

 

The hedge against high speed guys used to be hitting it in the center of the clubface. With ball speeds consistent over a much larger face area now they can just step up and whack it.

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> > > > >

> > > > > Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> > > > > Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> > > > > Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> > > > > Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> > > > > Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> > > > > As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

> > > >

> > > > The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

> > >

> > > No thats not how it works. Longer guys got disproportionately longer, shorter guys we know like Justin Leonard disappeared

> >

> > says who? I've never understood this argument. 3 % longer is slightly different at 300 vs 270 but it's a yard of relative difference. in reality there is no significant difference and it helps everyone.

>

> The hedge against high speed guys used to be hitting it in the center of the clubface. With ball speeds consistent over a much larger face area now they can just step up and whack it.

 

As can the historically shorter hitters

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > > > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> > > > > > Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> > > > > > Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> > > > > > Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> > > > > > Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> > > > > > As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

> > > > >

> > > > > The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

> > > >

> > > > No thats not how it works. Longer guys got disproportionately longer, shorter guys we know like Justin Leonard disappeared

> > >

> > > says who? I've never understood this argument. 3 % longer is slightly different at 300 vs 270 but it's a yard of relative difference. in reality there is no significant difference and it helps everyone.

> >

> > The hedge against high speed guys used to be hitting it in the center of the clubface. With ball speeds consistent over a much larger face area now they can just step up and whack it.

>

> As can the historically shorter hitters

 

No they can't because they don't have it in them. Thats the point. Back in the day the long hitters would have to "dial it back" if they wanted to have a chance. No one "dials it back" anymore except tiger for health reasons. And many long hitters would never make it to the tour anyway.

[Titleist99]

> @Pmookie said:

> I wonder if all of the money these guys make, even those who don’t win at all, takes down that “desire” for wins, or the need to win. When Hogan, Nelson, Jack, etc all played, you had to win to make a top-notch living. In the Hogan documentary, he actually made great money for the time, $900,000+ for his career, but he HAD to WIN.

> Guys can make that much on Tour every year without ever winning. Anyway, I think there’s parity, but I just think these guys don’t really have the desire.

> Look at what Curtis Strange said to Tiger years ago when Tiger said he wanted to win every tournament..... Strange said, “You’ll learn.”

 

While I agree with you.....I had this exact debate with a poster. He tried to convince me that back in the day pre 1968, all PGA Touring Pros Made a great living and no one needed second jobs. My position was that the big names made a decent living but not the rank and file. Today most tour events have $1M+ winners checks....Some caddies make more than years past players (sarcasm)….LOL! Arnie, Jack and Gary was doing commentary, golf shows, book deals, spokes person for advertisers (Penzoil) and tons of corporate events and they were the big names!

[wmblake2000]

> @LICC said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

>

> Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

 

My memory is that this period of time was filled with players who were mainly not exciting. Sure guys like Norman, Seve, Couples, Watson were - but my memories have a lot of Hubert Green kinds of players in them after Nicklaus faded....

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > > > > > > > If there is parity, it seems different from pre-tiger years, when the tour seemed kinda mediocre. These days, the pga seems packed with extraordinary players...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Do you think today’s players are better than Faldo, Norman, Couples, Payne Stewart, Nick Price, or Seve, Floyd, Langer, Watson, Crenshaw, etc?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Faldos shortish plodding style wouldn't work today...it's no coincidence his major era ended when tigers began (remember he put the green jacket on tiger?)

> > > > > > > Couples for all the accolades only had one major, and that was with a power advantage he wouldnt have today

> > > > > > > Norman choked and was snake bit in any era

> > > > > > > Floyd is Patrick Reed at best

> > > > > > > Watson I think could have been a contender in any era because of his competitiveness and short game (until the yips) and he had power

> > > > > > > As for the others, no I don't think they'd have anywhere near the same level of success except for maybe seve whose driving Achilles heel would benefit from the modern driver.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shortish guys would be longer with today’s equipment. The relative distances have been narrowed for shorter hitters. Now it’s just long and super long. Spieth would have been shortish back then.

> > > > >

> > > > > No thats not how it works. Longer guys got disproportionately longer, shorter guys we know like Justin Leonard disappeared

> > > >

> > > > says who? I've never understood this argument. 3 % longer is slightly different at 300 vs 270 but it's a yard of relative difference. in reality there is no significant difference and it helps everyone.

> > >

> > > The hedge against high speed guys used to be hitting it in the center of the clubface. With ball speeds consistent over a much larger face area now they can just step up and whack it.

> >

> > As can the historically shorter hitters

>

> No they can't because they don't have it in them. Thats the point. Back in the day the long hitters would have to "dial it back" if they wanted to have a chance. No one "dials it back" anymore except tiger for health reasons. And many long hitters would never make it to the tour anyway.

 

You are confusing length and accuracy

[MtlJeff]

I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

 

I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

 

There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

 

Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

>

> I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

>

> There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

>

> Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

 

There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> >

> > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> >

> > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> >

> > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

>

> There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

 

I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

 

The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

[JD3]

Only surprise winner we had in a "big" tournie this year (I'll count 6 at 4 majors + players + tour championship/FedEx) was US Open. Other than Gary woodland remaining tournies were won by big name favorites - Rory (2), Tiger (1), Koepka (1), Lowry (1). Only Lowry was a first time winner in that category of 6, but still he was on short list of "next up".

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > >

> > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > >

> > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > >

> > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> >

> > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

>

> I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

>

> The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

 

What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > >

> > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > >

> > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > >

> > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > >

> > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> >

> > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> >

> > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

>

> What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

 

Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

 

If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

[Titleist99]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > >

> > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > >

> > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > >

> > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > >

> > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> >

> > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

>

> Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

>

> If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

 

And with the influx of additional cash and notoriety plus better training facilities you will have bigger and better players by 2050. The older players will be asking to roll back the rackets and the ball.....LOL!

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > >

> > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > >

> > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > >

> > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > >

> > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> >

> > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

>

> Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

>

> If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

 

Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

[bscinstnct]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > >

> > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > >

> > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > >

> > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > >

> > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> >

> > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

>

> Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

>

> If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

 

 

Squash players be like,

 

 

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > >

> > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > >

> > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > >

> > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > >

> > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> >

> > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> >

> > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

>

> Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

 

The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

 

The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

[Darth Putter]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > >

> > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > >

> > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > >

> > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > >

> > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > >

> > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> >

> > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

>

> The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

>

> The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

 

$650,000 would put you #150 on this year's money list. If you were also #150 in the Fed Ex Cup standings you even got a bonus into the retirement account.

 

 

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > >

> > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > >

> > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > >

> > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > >

> > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > >

> > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> >

> > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

>

> The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

>

> The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

 

It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three.

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > > >

> > > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > > >

> > > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > > >

> > > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> > >

> > > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

> >

> > The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

> >

> > The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

>

> It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three.

 

You are framing arguments ridiculously. If you want to have a serious debate I'm happy to, but it doesn't seem so. Have a great day. In fact I'll even name 3 great days I want you to have: today, tomorrow, and Wednesday

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > > > >

> > > > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> > > >

> > > > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

> > >

> > > The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

> > >

> > > The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

> >

> > It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three.

>

> You are framing arguments ridiculously. If you want to have a serious debate I'm happy to, but it doesn't seem so. Have a great day. In fact I'll even name 3 great days I want you to have: today, tomorrow, and Wednesday

 

If you can’t answer that your theory goes out the window.

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> > > > >

> > > > > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

> > > >

> > > > The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

> > > >

> > > > The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

> > >

> > > It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three.

> >

> > You are framing arguments ridiculously. If you want to have a serious debate I'm happy to, but it doesn't seem so. Have a great day. In fact I'll even name 3 great days I want you to have: today, tomorrow, and Wednesday

>

> If you can’t answer that your theory goes out the window.

 

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> > > > >

> > > > > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

> > > >

> > > > The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

> > > >

> > > > The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

> > >

> > > It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three.

> >

> > You are framing arguments ridiculously. If you want to have a serious debate I'm happy to, but it doesn't seem so. Have a great day. In fact I'll even name 3 great days I want you to have: today, tomorrow, and Wednesday

>

> If you can’t answer that your theory goes out the window.

 

Name 3 more theories that go out the window along with it.

[JD3]

Imo today's generation would pretty much demolish previous ones...no matter which era of equipment they were required to use. Sure Hogan and Nicklaus and a few others would still shine, but for the most part the pro ranks would be dominated by today's players. Call it fitness, training, mechanics, whatever....theres just a lot more all round sound players and almost none getting by with unusual moves (like Floyd, furyk or trevino) or obvious power deficiencies (pavin, Calvin peete, funk)

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> Imo today's generation would pretty much demolish previous ones...no matter which era of equipment they were required to use. Sure Hogan and Nicklaus and a few others would still shine, but for the most part the pro ranks would be dominated by today's players. Call it fitness, training, mechanics, whatever....theres just a lot more all round sound players and almost none getting by with unusual moves (like Floyd, furyk or trevino) or obvious power deficiencies (pavin, Calvin peete, funk)

 

Players hit it farther today because of modern equipment. Not enhanced skill level. Players today with unusual moves- DJ, Spieth, Rahm, Finau, DeChambeau ...

[pinhigh27]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > > > > I have made this argument before and even wrote an article for this site about 7-8 years ago on the subject.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think progressing towards parity is inevitable in a sport like golf , especially the more it becomes capitalized due to higher wages combined with the fact that you cannot play defense on your opponent. I definitely believe there is wayyyy more talent on the PGA tour than ever before (ease of europeans and asians to play on it, ease of travel, higher wages leading to more people pursuing it etc....). So you combine all these things with a sport where you can't physically stop your opponent from doing something....you get more parity. Brooks Koepka can't go out and guarantee that some guy ranked 43rd won't have a career day and shoot 62 on Sunday. It's not like Tennis where Roger Federer can return your shots. Golf is like a souped up version of an NBA 3-pt contest, except if there were 125 participants. Steph Curry is the best shooter in the world but he wouldn't win every time.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There will always be guys who come along and differentiate themselves. But i think it will become rarer, and the norm will be more what we see now, guys getting hot for short stretches.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another comparable "sport" would probably be Poker. Pre-Rounders, you saw the same names a lot. But once online poker started, once poker became cool, you had guys no one had ever heard of winning the world series every year. The best guys were just the guys who won a bit and finished 15th most years. It's similar in that you can do everything right and just lose because your opponent caught a crazy hand that day

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is nothing in what you said that wouldn’t be the same 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Human beings don’t evolve that quickly. The top 50-70 players in the world at any given time period once a sport reaches maturity are extraordinarily skilled.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I definitely believe the top 50-70 players in the world are more skilled now than they were 40yrs ago owing to capitalization. 40yrs ago there wasn't the same incentive to become a pro athlete (pay is 30x+ higher which way outpaces inflation) and less countries had the ability to be represented (how many asian players on tour 40yrs ago?).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The top 50-70 players in the world are obviously always going to be super talented, but even among the very talented , there is talent gaps. And the higher a sport gets capitalized those gaps close IMO

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What gaps? There is nothing to support the notion that the top 70 players today are more skilled than the top 70 players in 1979

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure there is, larger talent pool to choose from due to higher pay for the same job , and better access to global candidates. Economists argue this all the time

> > > > >

> > > > > If we started paying Squash players the same as NBA players, 30yrs from now itd be hard to argue squash players aren't better in 2050 than they were in 2020. Athletes in the US dont try to become pro squash players now because the pay sucks compared to other pro sports. This isn't to say the top squash players in the world suck, they'd just be better in 2050

> > > >

> > > > Name three players today that are playing the PGA Tour that otherwise wouldn’t be if the pay was relatively the same as 1979

> > >

> > > The guy who finished 5th on tour in 1980 made 239k. Adjusted for inflation I believe that's roughly 650k in today's dollars. If you had to be 5th in the world to make 650k in today's pro sports climate...

> > >

> > > The 5000th best business person in the US makes more than that

> >

> > It’s more like $850k in today’s dollars. Which Tour pro has the alternative to make $850k if he never pursued golf? Name three.

>

> You are framing arguments ridiculously. If you want to have a serious debate I'm happy to, but it doesn't seem so. Have a great day. In fact I'll even name 3 great days I want you to have: today, tomorrow, and Wednesday

 

He does it in like every thread don't worry.

 

Idk what's hard to believe about sports getting more competitive over time as incentive to do well increases, we learn more about the sport, how to coach and teach it and global travel is easier than ever.

 

People have this weird homerism where they can't accept their guy wasn't the greatest.