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

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @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 ...

 

Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

[LICC]

> @pinhigh27 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

>

> 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.

 

He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

[b.helts]

Hey > @LICC said:

> > @pinhigh27 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

> >

> > 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.

>

> He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

 

Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

[mosesgolf]

Tiger and Jack were so dominant they almost made it look easy. But we know that's not the case. Jack and Tiger were once in life time type of players. Someone else will come along. They always do. I just hope I'm around to see it. But for the most part yes there is parity. We've seen players play great for 2-3 years (Rory, Jordan, & BK). But have we seen Tiger like domination?

[LICC]

> @"b.helts" said:

> Hey > @LICC said:

> > > @pinhigh27 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

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

>

> Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

 

$850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

[tannyhoban]

Far more tours and opportunities to make money today. A couple or three decades ago not the case. I'd put Julius Boros up against any of these guys today. He was fun to watch.

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @"b.helts" said:

> > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> >

> > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

>

> $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

 

You haven't really made an argument yet. Just said ours is wrong and asked us to arbitrarily provide names of players who wouldn't be golfers and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

 

What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

[pinhigh27]

> @LICC said:

> > @"b.helts" said:

> > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> >

> > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

>

> $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

 

? Is this argument really beyond you? So you're saying the 130th ranked guy now makes as much as the 5th guy from 30 years ago, but you fail to see how there isn't significantly more incentive to get into the game? What does the 5th ranked pga tour player make now? It's probably like 20 million/yr with endorsements.

 

Prize money is just one piece of the pie. The endorsements and ability to market yourself is obviously way higher now.

 

It's not recency bias, it's logic. You don't make any points of your own, you just say " no that's not true."

 

Again, say it with me. Any sport where the incentive to succeed continues to increase, will continue to evolve. Compare the athleticism of basketball players now to 40 years ago. It's barely the same game.

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > >

> > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> >

> > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

>

> You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

>

> What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

 

This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

[JD3]

It isn't just golf, who would have predicted $400 million baseball contracts in the 80's?

[pinhigh27]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > >

> > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > >

> > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> >

> > You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

> >

> > What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

>

> This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

 

There are absolutely thousands of people trying to be professional golfers. Mini tours and d1 and 2 College golf alone.

 

I also have no idea what that has to do with the discussion. Your points and general style of arguing don't make any sense. It's like someone makes a point and your response is "I don't like pizza."

[pinhigh27]

Why has MMA exploded and the fighters are suddenly well more rounded than 10 years ago where you could be predominantly one discipline and do well? Well because there's a lot more money in it now and thus incentive to win, which results in what? People improving.

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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 ...

>

> Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

 

Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

[LICC]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > >

> > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> >

> > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

>

> ? Is this argument really beyond you? So you're saying the 130th ranked guy now makes as much as the 5th guy from 30 years ago, but you fail to see how there isn't significantly more incentive to get into the game? What does the 5th ranked pga tour player make now? It's probably like 20 million/yr with endorsements.

>

> Prize money is just one piece of the pie. The endorsements and ability to market yourself is obviously way higher now.

>

> It's not recency bias, it's logic. You don't make any points of your own, you just say " no that's not true."

>

> Again, say it with me. Any sport where the incentive to succeed continues to increase, will continue to evolve. Compare the athleticism of basketball players now to 40 years ago. It's barely the same game.

 

In basketball the style has changed, not the skill level, because the rules and officiating changed. Larry Bird in his prime today would be lighting it up.

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > >

> > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > >

> > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> >

> > You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

> >

> > What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

>

> This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

 

There are definitely tens of thousands of pro golfers, most dont play on the PGA tour but at one point they likely had dreams that they would. It's like saying anyone who doesnt make it to CEO isn't a businessman. The CEO's are just the ones who made it higher

 

You dont need an elite skill to do anything unless the competition is also elite. If they paid golfers 5$ a year my guess is you wouldn't need to be elite to play on the PGA tour. But for 10M yeah you need to be elite. Probably more elite than if they paid you 230k. Again that is just elasticity of economics supply and demand etc

[LICC]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> Why has MMA exploded and the fighters are suddenly well more rounded than 10 years ago where you could be predominantly one discipline and do well? Well because there's a lot more money in it now and thus incentive to win, which results in what? People improving.

 

 

MMA was a new sport just recently. Golf has been a mature sport for decades.

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @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 ...

> >

> > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

>

> Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

 

Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > > >

> > > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> > >

> > > You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

> > >

> > > What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

> >

> > This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

>

> There are definitely tens of thousands of pro golfers, most dont play on the PGA tour but at one point they likely had dreams that they would. It's like saying anyone who doesnt make it to CEO isn't a businessman. The CEO's are just the ones who made it higher

>

> You dont need an elite skill to do anything unless the competition is also elite. If they paid golfers 5$ a year my guess is you wouldn't need to be elite to play on the PGA tour. But for 10M yeah you need to be elite. Probably more elite than if they paid you 230k. Again that is just elasticity of economics supply and demand etc

 

We are talking about parity and skill levels on the Tour. Not about club pros.

 

Let’s use real numbers. Why do you think $8mil instead of $800k will lead to higher levels of skill? For that to be, someone would have to decide not to play golf unless the money was substantially better than 1980 levels. Well point them out. Who would they be?

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @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 ...

> > >

> > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> >

> > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

>

> Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

 

I’m talking about unconventional swings.

Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

[MtlJeff]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"b.helts" said:

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

> > > > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > > > >

> > > > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> > > >

> > > > You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

> > > >

> > > > What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

> > >

> > > This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

> >

> > There are definitely tens of thousands of pro golfers, most dont play on the PGA tour but at one point they likely had dreams that they would. It's like saying anyone who doesnt make it to CEO isn't a businessman. The CEO's are just the ones who made it higher

> >

> > You dont need an elite skill to do anything unless the competition is also elite. If they paid golfers 5$ a year my guess is you wouldn't need to be elite to play on the PGA tour. But for 10M yeah you need to be elite. Probably more elite than if they paid you 230k. Again that is just elasticity of economics supply and demand etc

>

> We are talking about parity and skill levels on the Tour. Not about club pros.

>

> Let’s use real numbers. Why do you think $8mil instead of $800k will lead to higher levels of skill? For that to be, someone would have to decide not to play golf unless the money was substantially better than 1980 levels. Well point them out. Who would they be?

 

Ok I'm really done now. Again, basic economic principles argue this. You are arguing nothing. Have a good day

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @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 ...

> > > >

> > > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> > >

> > > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

> >

> > Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

>

> I’m talking about unconventional swings.

> Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

 

Unconventional + no power doesn't make it anymore. Kuchar has no majors, and the window is closing rapidly. Furyk, pavin, Trevino types thing of the past

[LICC]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @"b.helts" said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> > > > >

> > > > > You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

> > > > >

> > > > > What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

> > > >

> > > > This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

> > >

> > > There are definitely tens of thousands of pro golfers, most dont play on the PGA tour but at one point they likely had dreams that they would. It's like saying anyone who doesnt make it to CEO isn't a businessman. The CEO's are just the ones who made it higher

> > >

> > > You dont need an elite skill to do anything unless the competition is also elite. If they paid golfers 5$ a year my guess is you wouldn't need to be elite to play on the PGA tour. But for 10M yeah you need to be elite. Probably more elite than if they paid you 230k. Again that is just elasticity of economics supply and demand etc

> >

> > We are talking about parity and skill levels on the Tour. Not about club pros.

> >

> > Let’s use real numbers. Why do you think $8mil instead of $800k will lead to higher levels of skill? For that to be, someone would have to decide not to play golf unless the money was substantially better than 1980 levels. Well point them out. Who would they be?

>

> Ok I'm really done now. Again, basic economic principles argue this. You are arguing nothing. Have a good day

 

Microeconomics, not macro.

 

You have a good day too, thanks.

[pinhigh27]

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @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 ...

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> > > >

> > > > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

> > >

> > > Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

> >

> > I’m talking about unconventional swings.

> > Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

>

> Unconventional + no power doesn't make it anymore. Kuchar has no majors, and the window is closing rapidly. Furyk, pavin, Trevino types thing of the past

 

Who cares about conventional or unconventional. Yes you need to hit it far. Swinging " conventionally" isn't the only way to do that.

 

Daniel bergers swing is pretty unconventional. Works OK for him.

 

Equating looking like iron Byron to a functional golf swing is really stupid.

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @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 ...

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> > > >

> > > > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

> > >

> > > Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

> >

> > I’m talking about unconventional swings.

> > Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

>

> Unconventional + no power doesn't make it anymore. Kuchar has no majors, and the window is closing rapidly. Furyk, pavin, Trevino types thing of the past

 

Shane Lowry would rank 75th in driving distance on the European Tour this year

 

Patrick Reed ranks 71st on the PGA Tour

[pinhigh27]

> @LICC said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @"b.helts" said:

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

> > > > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > > > >

> > > > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> > > >

> > > > You haven't made an argument yet. Just said "wrong" to ours and asked us to provide names of players and what their other jobs would be. The concept of better applicants for a job based on higher pay is not a wacky one

> > > >

> > > > What is your argument that greater pay and greater globalization does not lead to better candidates?

> > >

> > > This isn’t an industry with tens of thousands of employees. We are talking about needing an elite level specialized skill to be able to do it. The percentage of the population that can be PGA Tour players is miniscule. Your trying to equate it to a broader skill set doesn’t apply. If you can’t come up with specific examples your argument hits a dead end

> >

> > There are definitely tens of thousands of pro golfers, most dont play on the PGA tour but at one point they likely had dreams that they would. It's like saying anyone who doesnt make it to CEO isn't a businessman. The CEO's are just the ones who made it higher

> >

> > You dont need an elite skill to do anything unless the competition is also elite. If they paid golfers 5$ a year my guess is you wouldn't need to be elite to play on the PGA tour. But for 10M yeah you need to be elite. Probably more elite than if they paid you 230k. Again that is just elasticity of economics supply and demand etc

>

> We are talking about parity and skill levels on the Tour. Not about club pros.

>

> Let’s use real numbers. Why do you think $8mil instead of $800k will lead to higher levels of skill? For that to be, someone would have to decide not to play golf unless the money was substantially better than 1980 levels. Well point them out. Who would they be?

 

Why do you think it wouldn't? Can you make any logical argument for why increasing the incentize for achieving something wouldn't elevate the game?

 

Lets put it this way. If I said we're going to hold a ping pong tournament and the winner gets 1 million dollars, how do you think that would affect world ping pong skill? Now if I said the winner gets 50 million, how would that affect world ping pong skill?

 

Don't you find it funny a majority of people in the thread besides you agree on something and you just can't seem to fathom it. That doesnt seem strange to you?

[bscinstnct]

> @LICC said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > >

> > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > >

> > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> >

> > ? Is this argument really beyond you? So you're saying the 130th ranked guy now makes as much as the 5th guy from 30 years ago, but you fail to see how there isn't significantly more incentive to get into the game? What does the 5th ranked pga tour player make now? It's probably like 20 million/yr with endorsements.

> >

> > Prize money is just one piece of the pie. The endorsements and ability to market yourself is obviously way higher now.

> >

> > It's not recency bias, it's logic. You don't make any points of your own, you just say " no that's not true."

> >

> > Again, say it with me. Any sport where the incentive to succeed continues to increase, will continue to evolve. Compare the athleticism of basketball players now to 40 years ago. It's barely the same game.

>

> In basketball the style has changed, not the skill level, because the rules and officiating changed. Larry Bird in his prime today would be lighting it up.

 

Are you really arguing that the NBA was as good in the 50s as it is now? That the players are not better? (Yeah, I know LB did not play in the 50s but same principles and variables apply)

 

Just think for a second of why the caliber of play is multiples better now.

 

Larger talent pools and more incentive.

 

You don’t think the same variables apply to golf over the past 60 years?

 

 

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @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 ...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> > > > >

> > > > > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

> > >

> > > I’m talking about unconventional swings.

> > > Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

> >

> > Unconventional + no power doesn't make it anymore. Kuchar has no majors, and the window is closing rapidly. Furyk, pavin, Trevino types thing of the past

>

> Shane Lowry would rank 75th in driving distance on the European Tour this year

>

> Patrick Reed ranks 71st on the PGA Tour

 

Those are good. Corey pavin was last when he won us open. Hit 4 wood into 18th green where other guys had mid irons. Fred funk was last in driving distance when he won players. Not happening anymore

[LICC]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"b.helts" said:

> > > > > Hey > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @pinhigh27 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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He theorizes squash players making tens of millions a year and my framing is ridiculous? My question is at the core of his theory. You don’t have an argument that today there is greater incentive such to materially change the skill levels from the top players of 40 years ago. That is a weird recency bias

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, he said the 5th ranked player made $650K or $850K in adjusted dollars. So $850K is now about 150th on tour, if I remember right. So it’s clear that the earning potential for professional golf has risen significantly! That is a strong argument for more and better candidates seeking that kind of earning power. Meaning more players of a higher caliber.

> > > >

> > > > $850k would be 130th now. But so what? You’re making a leap that some PGA Tour players would not be playing golf if the money were at the 1980 adjusted levels. So who are these players? What would they be doing instead? Upon what are you basing that assumption?

> > >

> > > ? Is this argument really beyond you? So you're saying the 130th ranked guy now makes as much as the 5th guy from 30 years ago, but you fail to see how there isn't significantly more incentive to get into the game? What does the 5th ranked pga tour player make now? It's probably like 20 million/yr with endorsements.

> > >

> > > Prize money is just one piece of the pie. The endorsements and ability to market yourself is obviously way higher now.

> > >

> > > It's not recency bias, it's logic. You don't make any points of your own, you just say " no that's not true."

> > >

> > > Again, say it with me. Any sport where the incentive to succeed continues to increase, will continue to evolve. Compare the athleticism of basketball players now to 40 years ago. It's barely the same game.

> >

> > In basketball the style has changed, not the skill level, because the rules and officiating changed. Larry Bird in his prime today would be lighting it up.

>

> Are you really arguing that the NBA was as good in the 50s as it is now? That the players are not better? (Yeah, I know LB did not play in the 50s but same principles and variables apply)

>

> Just think for a second of why the caliber of play is multiples better now.

>

> Larger talent pools and more incentive.

>

> You don’t think the same variables apply to golf over the past 60 years?

>

>

 

Who brought up the 1950s? That’s a different discussion

[LICC]

> @JD3 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @JD3 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @JD3 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @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 ...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

> > > >

> > > > I’m talking about unconventional swings.

> > > > Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

> > >

> > > Unconventional + no power doesn't make it anymore. Kuchar has no majors, and the window is closing rapidly. Furyk, pavin, Trevino types thing of the past

> >

> > Shane Lowry would rank 75th in driving distance on the European Tour this year

> >

> > Patrick Reed ranks 71st on the PGA Tour

>

> Those are good. Corey pavin was last when he won us open. Hit 4 wood into 18th green where other guys had mid irons. Fred funk was last in driving distance when he won players. Not happening anymore

 

Webb Simpson won the Players last year. 145th in driving distance. Last in the field in driving distance the year he won. Furyk finished 2nd at the Players this year.

[JD3]

> @LICC said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @JD3 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @JD3 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @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 ...

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sure we all know the equipment goes farther. But separating the players from the equipment the current pros you mentioned are perfect iron Byron's compared to the previous generations' outliers

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Also Bubba Watson, Kuchar, now Matt Wolff. No Iron Byron’s in any of the swings I mentioned.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Kuchar is quite literally fading into oblivion, with no majors to his credit. The other 2 guys have tons of power.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m talking about unconventional swings.

> > > > > Kuchar was 3rd on the money list this year.

> > > >

> > > > Unconventional + no power doesn't make it anymore. Kuchar has no majors, and the window is closing rapidly. Furyk, pavin, Trevino types thing of the past

> > >

> > > Shane Lowry would rank 75th in driving distance on the European Tour this year

> > >

> > > Patrick Reed ranks 71st on the PGA Tour

> >

> > Those are good. Corey pavin was last when he won us open. Hit 4 wood into 18th green where other guys had mid irons. Fred funk was last in driving distance when he won players. Not happening anymore

>

> Webb Simpson won the Players last year. 145th in driving distance. Last in the field in driving distance the year he won. Furyk finished 2nd at the Players this year.

 

That tournie used to be the salvation for short knockers. Not anymore when the best driver on the planet won it this year. And a real major like pavin last in DD when winning the open? Lol laughable in this day and age