which group would fare better?
capr...@usa.com
Mickelson and Tiger woods, and send them back in time have them play a
round with Ben Hogan Sam Snead and Byron Nelson and have them all play
with clubs from that era. Then bring those same guys forward to today
to play around with the latest equipment. Which group would fare
better with the others equipment. My money would be on Ben, Sam and
Byron.
Matt
<capr...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:1104822093.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
ChrisTheHeretic
: Ok, Lets say you could take three todays best golfers; Enie Els, Phil
It'd be a draw. The slow bumpy greens of yesteryear would
completely mystify today's players, and the ice rink greens
of today would stun the old heroes.
All else is pretty much moot.
Steve
I am taking Ernie, Phil and Tiger. Once Hogan, Snead and Nelson stepped on
the first tee and found out it was a 480 yard par 4, they would shake their
heads and walk away.
Steve
ChrisTheHeretic
:
: <capr...@usa.com> wrote in message
On today's turf with today's equipment, they'd be fine.
Hogan and Snead, especially, were long as hell when they
wanted to be.
cb
how...@brazee.net
On 4-Jan-2005, ChrisTheHeretic <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> It'd be a draw. The slow bumpy greens of yesteryear would
> completely mystify today's players, and the ice rink greens
> of today would stun the old heroes.
You don't think modern players have putted on bad surfaces (bumpy fairways)?
Herbert
"Steve" <st...@bs-s.com> wrote in message
news:c_ydnb2UavY...@speakeasy.net...
Disagree. That group carried 1 and 2 irons and were not a'scared to use em.
Matt
either.
"Herbert" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OAxCd.691061$Pl.470369@pd7tw1no...
Herbert
"Matt" <rebe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WGxCd.4230$Xs6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Steve
> on
> : the first tee and found out it was a 480 yard par 4, they would shake
> their
> : heads and walk away.
>
> On today's turf with today's equipment, they'd be fine.
>
> Hogan and Snead, especially, were long as hell when they
> wanted to be.
>
> cb
Maybe but with the current players advanced training methods, both physical
and mental, I would have to give them the edge plus today, Hogan, Snead and
Nelson would all be somewhere around 92.
There was a baseball player, if I had to guess it was Ted Williams, who
years after he retired he was asked how he would fair against todays
pitchers. He said something along the lines of probably only hit about
.270. When the reported asked why only .270 he explained that he was 65
years old.
Steve
AJW
>> > Mickelson and Tiger woods, and send them back in time have them play a
>> > round with Ben Hogan Sam Snead and Byron Nelson and have them all play
>> > with clubs from that era. Then bring those same guys forward to today
>> > to play around with the latest equipment. Which group would fare
>> > better with the others equipment. My money would be on Ben, Sam and
>> > Byron.
>> >
>>
>> I am taking Ernie, Phil and Tiger. Once Hogan, Snead and Nelson stepped
>on
>> the first tee and found out it was a 480 yard par 4, they would shake
>their
>> heads and walk away.
>
>Disagree. That group carried 1 and 2 irons and were not a'scared to use em.
>
>
golfers. What I mean is, it's more likely the 'best' one of a million is going
to be better than the best one of a thousand.
Add to that the conditioning of today's players and it should be today's
version of best is better than yesterday's version.
Think about this for a moment: It isn't just technology that makes a 4 minute
mile not so unusual anymore. Swimming records keep falling, too, although there
are technical advantages there, too. Try to think of a sport where today's best
players aren't better than those of years ago. I can't. The best of us are
bigger and stronger than than the best of other eras.
The rest of us are fat!
Miss Anne Thrope
time warp sounds like a worthwhile pursuit.
BowTie - Chevy
Ken
Bobby Knight
<bowtie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No doubt about this. The greats of the past win this hands down.
>
>Ken
A lot of doubt about this. It would be hard to call.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2005 09:53:11 -0800, "BowTie - Chevy"
> <bowtie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No doubt about this. The greats of the past win this hands down.
> >
> >Ken
>
> A lot of doubt about this. It would be hard to call.
Going backwards, it would be interesting. The inferior
equipment would tend to minimize the differences between
golfers. Going forward it would tend to amplify them.
With a few presumptions, such as time to aclimate to the
equipment and fields of play, both groups might have a chance.
It does seem that the old guys would be at a disadvantage
since they didn't spend nearly the time practicing or
preparing that the current crowd tends toward. Their physical
condition (they all smoked as I recall) and their
inferior knowledge of the physics (they didn't study their
swings with computers) as well as the fact that the
current crowd (and/or their instructors) have studied the fahoey
out of the older guys would all seem to favor the current
players.
We may get some insight it this kind of question in the
next 20 years or so. When you realize that the age difference
between #1 and #10 is roughly 20 years or so, and that #1
is the older, it will help judge the "test of time"
kinds of questions. Tiger's career could easily span
another 15 - 20 years. If he is still winning and
competing, the young guns who have grown up on the newer
equipment, the better physical conditioning, and being
able to study Tiger will actually be able to compete
directly against him. It could very well demonstrate
that in golf, skill lasts a long time for the very best.
We'll see.
ChrisTheHeretic
:
Not enough to be any good at it.
There's a reason why all those old golf films show guys with
wristy pop strokes.
cb
Howard Brazee
> Going backwards, it would be interesting. The inferior
> equipment would tend to minimize the differences between
> golfers. Going forward it would tend to amplify them.
Why is that?
Certainly there was a wider variety of swing styles back then, but I believe
that was because more players learned to play without swing lessons.
ChrisTheHeretic
:
:
: > Going backwards, it would be interesting. The inferior
: > equipment would tend to minimize the differences between
: > golfers. Going forward it would tend to amplify them.
:
: Why is that?
Indeed, I think that's backwards logic. Clubs with smaller
sweet spots reward only those golfers who can be precise
enough to hit them. Modern clubs with huge sweet spots
reward almost everybody.
cb
Annika1980
>No doubt about this. The greats of the past win this hands down.
Yeah, and Old Tom Morris would kick all their asses!
Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the old-timers. You
can't.
Boxing would be close, but Rocky Marciano would get killed by Lennox Lewis or
even Mike Tyson in his prime.
Today's athletes are much bigger and stronger.
Tiger Woods would be knocking it past the old guys with any equipment. I love
Ben Hogan, but put him on a green which stimps at 12 or 13 and he could never
draw it back. The short games of the modern players would be the difference.
BowTie - Chevy
Ken
ChrisTheHeretic
: >From: "BowTie - Chevy" bowtie...@yahoo.com
: >No doubt about this. The greats of the past win this hands down.
:
: Yeah, and Old Tom Morris would kick all their asses!
:
: Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the old-timers. You
: can't.
Sure I can: Golf.
Dumbass.
cb
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
The equipment today amplifies small differences in swing speed. As
such, total driving distance increases are larger for faster swing
speeds.
ChrisTheHeretic
:
: > On 4-Jan-2005, "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
: <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
: >
: > > Going backwards, it would be interesting. The inferior
: > > equipment would tend to minimize the differences between
: > > golfers. Going forward it would tend to amplify them.
: >
: > Why is that?
: >
: > Certainly there was a wider variety of swing styles back then, but I
: believe
: > that was because more players learned to play without swing lessons.
:
: The equipment today amplifies small differences in swing speed.
...but de-emphasizes differences in precision.
cb
"R&B"
> Tiger couldn't find the golf course with an Eye-O-Matic driver.
>
> Ken
Sure he could. But he'd need a year to rebuild his swing first.
Randy
Steve
"BowTie - Chevy" <bowtie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104874480....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Tiger couldn't find the golf course with an Eye-O-Matic driver.
>
> Ken
>
I think the current players would really struggle with the old equipment and
the old players would really struggle with the current courses. There is no
way you could compare old and new because of the changes in equipment and
courses over the years. Its not like running the mile where you can measure
results with a stopwatch. I tend to believe that the new guys would win out
because just like every sport that truely can be measured, better
conditioning and training methods, yes sometimes equipment, produce better
results. Also there are obviously more ppl playing today than 50 + years
ago so it would make sense that the best of the best playing today when
millions play, especially with millions to be won, would be better than the
best when thousands were playing and thousands were at stake.
Steve
ChrisTheHeretic
: Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the old-timers. You
: can't.
I've already named golf, which is pretty self-evident. Golfers
today are no better than their predecessors, nor are they any
worse. It's pretty much a constant.
Baseball is another. Set aside steroids, and today's hitters
are no better than those of any other era (assuming of course
one includes Negro leagues talent from that era). Today's
pitchers are probably *worse*.
Today's basketball players are far worse than those of twenty
years ago. Not even close.
And of course bowling has never been the same since Randy
Brown retired.
cb
Bobby Knight
The more I think about it, Nicklaus playing during the same time
these guys? And....didn't one of them say "he plays a game with which
I'm unfamiliar"? It seems that the players got better even before
the advent of new club technology. Now, Tiger has raised the bar so
high for the current players that it seems logical to assume that
those of thirty years ago wouldn't be able to compete at the top of
the pack at the present level of play.
aka 'Wilson'
"Steve" <stevebNoS...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:FpOdnf4BMKu...@speakeasy.net...
chance in the 40's since they wouldn't have been born yet?
I think trying to compare players from different eras in any sport is a
little on the silly side but golf is one of the exceptions. A course could
be set up and equipment used to get the same conditions as back then. I even
think it would be an interesting premise for a 'Battle at Bighorn' type of
tv show.
--
Bill Simot
Bobby Knight
All but the last example are ridiculous.
Steve
> today are no better than their predecessors, nor are they any
> worse. It's pretty much a constant.
>
> Baseball is another. Set aside steroids, and today's hitters
> are no better than those of any other era (assuming of course
> one includes Negro leagues talent from that era). Today's
> pitchers are probably *worse*.
>
> Today's basketball players are far worse than those of twenty
> years ago. Not even close.
>
> And of course bowling has never been the same since Randy
> Brown retired.
Please explain your scientific method for comparing Lebron James to Dr. J.
The current players are bigger, stonger and faster and that will always be
the case, steroids or not. Can you imagine Wes Unseld, who was both the MVP
and Rookie of the Year in the same year, or Dave Cowens attempting to guard
Shaq or Tim Duncan?
Now can you give me an example of a sport where old timers are better where
performance can be measured such as by time or distance?
Steve
ChrisTheHeretic
: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:13:35 GMT, ChrisTheHeretic
: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: Howard Brazee wrote:
: >: > On 4-Jan-2005, "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
: >: <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
: >: >
: >: > > Going backwards, it would be interesting. The inferior
: >: > > equipment would tend to minimize the differences between
: >: > > golfers. Going forward it would tend to amplify them.
: >: >
: >: > Why is that?
: >: >
: >: > Certainly there was a wider variety of swing styles back then, but I
: >: believe
: >: > that was because more players learned to play without swing lessons.
: >:
: >: The equipment today amplifies small differences in swing speed.
: >
: >...but de-emphasizes differences in precision.
: The more I think about it, Nicklaus playing during the same time
: these guys? And....didn't one of them say "he plays a game with which
: I'm unfamiliar"? It seems that the players got better even before
: the advent of new club technology. Now, Tiger has raised the bar so
: high for the current players that it seems logical to assume that
: those of thirty years ago wouldn't be able to compete at the top of
: the pack at the present level of play.
Why should anyone think that Tiger is better than Nicklaus?
I don't.
cb
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
: Mickelson and Tiger woods, and send them back in time have them play a
: round with Ben Hogan Sam Snead and Byron Nelson and have them all play
: with clubs from that era. Then bring those same guys forward to today
: to play around with the latest equipment. Which group would fare
: better with the others equipment. My money would be on Ben, Sam and
: Byron.
The winners of any era demonstrated heart, something
that would be fun to watch but impossible to predict.
ChrisTheHeretic
: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:23:26 GMT, ChrisTheHeretic
: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: >: Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the old-timers. You
: >: can't.
: >
: >I've already named golf, which is pretty self-evident. Golfers
: >today are no better than their predecessors, nor are they any
: >worse. It's pretty much a constant.
: >
: >Baseball is another. Set aside steroids, and today's hitters
: >are no better than those of any other era (assuming of course
: >one includes Negro leagues talent from that era). Today's
: >pitchers are probably *worse*.
: >
: >Today's basketball players are far worse than those of twenty
: >years ago. Not even close.
: >
: >And of course bowling has never been the same since Randy
: >Brown retired.
: All but the last example are ridiculous.
I assume that you have the numbers to back that up.
cb
ChrisTheHeretic
: > I've already named golf, which is pretty self-evident. Golfers
: > today are no better than their predecessors, nor are they any
: > worse. It's pretty much a constant.
: >
: > Baseball is another. Set aside steroids, and today's hitters
: > are no better than those of any other era (assuming of course
: > one includes Negro leagues talent from that era). Today's
: > pitchers are probably *worse*.
: >
: > Today's basketball players are far worse than those of twenty
: > years ago. Not even close.
: >
: > And of course bowling has never been the same since Randy
: > Brown retired.
:
: Please explain your scientific method for comparing Lebron James to Dr. J.
I didn't compare Lebron James to Julius Erving.
However, if you want to look at shooting percentages, turnovers,
etc., you'll find the data to support my argument. Today's NBA
players lack the fundamental skills that earlier players were
expected to master.
: The current players are bigger, stonger and faster and that will always be
: the case, steroids or not.
They're also worse at basketball. There's not much correlation
between "bigger, stronger and faster" and improved play when
you are talking about a game of skill.
: Can you imagine Wes Unseld, who was both the MVP
: and Rookie of the Year in the same year, or Dave Cowens attempting to guard
: Shaq or Tim Duncan?
I can sure imagine Bill Russell guarding them. I can imagine
almost anyone guarding Shaq, as long as the rules of basketball
are, you know, enforced. Shaq is a terrible basketball player.
Can you imagine any modern player trying to keep up with Wilt
or Maravich for pure scoring? Kobe, maybe.
: Now can you give me an example of a sport where old timers are better where
: performance can be measured such as by time or distance?
Nope. It's in games of skill where performance has remained
constant or declined, as conditioning has become overemphasized
in place of skills.
cb
Steve
> : All but the last example are ridiculous.
>
> I assume that you have the numbers to back that up.
>
To backup what? You are the one making the claim that one group is better
than another. Where are your numbers? His statement that your examples are
ridiculous could mean the current players are better or that the players are
the same or that there is no way to tell.
Steve
Bobby Knight
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote:
>: The more I think about it, Nicklaus playing during the same time
>: these guys? And....didn't one of them say "he plays a game with which
>: I'm unfamiliar"? It seems that the players got better even before
>: the advent of new club technology. Now, Tiger has raised the bar so
>: high for the current players that it seems logical to assume that
>: those of thirty years ago wouldn't be able to compete at the top of
>: the pack at the present level of play.
>
>Why should anyone think that Tiger is better than Nicklaus?
>
>I don't.
>
>cb
Who cares what you think?
Bobby Knight
Neither of us do, and that's why its ridiculous.
Bruce Newman
annik...@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:
> Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the old-timers. You
> can't.
>
> Boxing would be close, but Rocky Marciano would get killed by Lennox Lewis or
> even Mike Tyson in his prime.
> Today's athletes are much bigger and stronger.
>
> Tiger Woods would be knocking it past the old guys with any equipment. I love
> Ben Hogan, but put him on a green which stimps at 12 or 13 and he could never
> draw it back. The short games of the modern players would be the difference.
I agree completely. While I don't have data to back anything up,
golfers of today are much better than, say, 25-30 years ago at any
level of competition I am familiar with. Locally, a 36 hole scoe of 145
would win you a lot of tournaments in 1975. Now, you'll definitely need
something under 140 and probably closer to 135. It's like that at every
level. They call them the old days for a reason. ;)
Bruce
--
Bruce Newman * Fredericton, NB, Canada
Open & Limited Edition Golf Art * http://brucenewman.com
http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/members_index.php?rollcall=newmanb
JJVP
primes. It was not computer graphics but actual footage from fights.
Don't remember exactly when it was, but it must have been at least 20+
yrs ago. If I recall correctly Marciano won that one. Maybe they can do
something like that, specially with todays technology.
JJVP
Chris Berry
would be pretty meaningless.
What makes Golf so interesting is form - and lack thereof.
No question any of them ould be able to whip my arse on the worst day of
golf they can produce but against each other, form would probably be the
biggest factor.
There is one fact though - we've learned a lot about the game since the
greats you've mentioned and I don't mean that in terms of equiment alone.
What does surprise me is that nobody's developped into a more complete
golfer - mastering all aspects of the game to a greater degree.
In this day and age, it's possible to coach someone to break 100 in 3 months
or even less so the possibilities of a younger player getting out there,
getting the right coaching and really breaking the bank is growing. I look
forward to the "Tiger eaters" making a farce of the pro game - not that it
will change it at all for us mere mortals..
cb
--
=================================
Some people have something to say... others have to say something!
Steve
> : Please explain your scientific method for comparing Lebron James to Dr.
> J.
>
> I didn't compare Lebron James to Julius Erving.
players are far worse than those of twenty years ago. Not even close." So
todays players, James and Kobe and Iverson and Duncan and on and on are far
worse than those from the 1984 all star game, which would include Rolando
Blackman, Norm Nixon, Larry Nance, Jack Sikma, Calvin Natt, Michael Ray
Richardson, Terry Cummings, Sidney Montcrief and Bernard King.
>
> However, if you want to look at shooting percentages, turnovers,
> etc., you'll find the data to support my argument. Today's NBA
> players lack the fundamental skills that earlier players were
> expected to master.
Make sure you through in defense in that calculation. Shooting over faster,
taller more athletic players may have some effect on those stats.
>
> : The current players are bigger, stonger and faster and that will always
> be
> : the case, steroids or not.
>
> They're also worse at basketball. There's not much correlation
> between "bigger, stronger and faster" and improved play when
> you are talking about a game of skill.
Of course there is. Its a game of ATHLETIC skill. If it was all about the
best shooter, I am sure you would have a bunch of 5-10, 40 year old white
guys who spend all day at a gym shooting free throws.
>
> : Can you imagine Wes Unseld, who was both the MVP
> : and Rookie of the Year in the same year, or Dave Cowens attempting to
> guard
> : Shaq or Tim Duncan?
>
> I can sure imagine Bill Russell guarding them. I can imagine
> almost anyone guarding Shaq, as long as the rules of basketball
> are, you know, enforced. Shaq is a terrible basketball player.
If almost anyone can guard Shaq then why are you not suiting up and making
10 mil a year? I am sure there are 30 teams who would love someone like
yourself who could shut down Shaq.
>
> Can you imagine any modern player trying to keep up with Wilt
> or Maravich for pure scoring? Kobe, maybe.
Yea I can, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Tracy MacGrady. Maravich was 6-5
as was Rick Barry. That is guard height today. Someone had to score for
the Hawks and the Jazz. You know Pistol Pete only lead the league once in
scoring. I consider Wilt one of the all time greats but the reality is
there was nobody his size at the time. The last all star game probably had
3 or 4 guys his size or bigger. Tim Duncan is about his size and he is
listed as a forward.
>
> : Now can you give me an example of a sport where old timers are better
> where
> : performance can be measured such as by time or distance?
>
> Nope. It's in games of skill where performance has remained
> constant or declined, as conditioning has become overemphasized
> in place of skills.
>
> cb
The current players have better training methods, access to better equipment
and nutrition and have been working at becoming a pro though junior camps
and traveling clubs probably since age 6.
Still waiting for that measurable example of an old timer who would beat the
current athletes.
Steve
Scott Newell
news:54dmt0hofcuihhvgm...@4ax.com...
> We've got Hogan, Snead, and Nelson from the 40's-50's and Ernie, Phil, and
> Tiger (why not VJ?) from the 90's-00's. How about Nicklaus, Watson, and
> Trevino from the 70's-80's? It needs to be a three-way match.
Now THAT would have been a good Wendy's Three Tour challenge! :-)
Legends, Champions and PGA TOUR. Although it is pretty cool to see the
LPGAers come out and play with the guys.
--
Scott D. Newell (newells *at* wsu *dot* edu)
Washington State University
"That shot is impossible!...Jack Nicholson
himself couldn't make it!"-- Homer Simpson
Annika1980
: Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the
old-timers. You
: can't.
>I've already named golf, which is pretty self-evident. Golfers
>today are no better than their predecessors, nor are they any
>worse. It's pretty much a constant.
You don't play much tournament golf, do you?
Most of the local tournaments here are dominated by high school or
college players. I'm sure it's the same where you live.
Ask any of the Seniors who have played with Tiger who is better.
I'm sure you'll get the same answer every time. Even Jack concedes
that it's a different game today, although he gives more credit to the
equipment than most.
>Baseball is another. Set aside steroids, and today's hitters
>are no better than those of any other era (assuming of course
>one includes Negro leagues talent from that era). Today's
>pitchers are probably *worse*.
It's hard to tell where the modern players would be without steroids,
and while I'm sure guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Pete Rose
would be great hitters in any era, the pitching today is MUCH better.
People used to marvel at Bob Feller and Nolan Ryan who could throw
the ball 98-100 mph. Now every team has at least one guy who can bring
the heat. Ty Cobb never saw a split-fingered fastball coming at him at
95 mph.
>Today's basketball players are far worse than those of twenty
>years ago. Not even close.
Today's players are bigger, stronger, and faster. Other than that,
it's a wash.
>And of course bowling has never been the same since Randy
>Brown retired.
Well after that embarrassing incident where his thumb got stuck in the
ball
what would you have done?
bill-o
> "MacHamish" <rjim...@comcast.remove.net> wrote in message
> news:54dmt0hofcuihhvgm...@4ax.com...
>
>>We've got Hogan, Snead, and Nelson from the 40's-50's and Ernie, Phil, and
>>Tiger (why not VJ?) from the 90's-00's. How about Nicklaus, Watson, and
>>Trevino from the 70's-80's? It needs to be a three-way match.
>
>
> Now THAT would have been a good Wendy's Three Tour challenge! :-)
>
> Legends, Champions and PGA TOUR. Although it is pretty cool to see the
> LPGAers come out and play with the guys.
>
--
bill-o
aka 'Wilson'
> Tiger (why not VJ?) from the 90's-00's. How about Nicklaus, Watson, and
> Trevino from the 70's-80's? It needs to be a three-way match.
>
>
And why not Gary Player? Getting these players back into their prime for the
three-way matchup would be kind of difficult. It would be interesting though
to have them walk the course with the younger players and hear any comments
that go back and forth while they play with the vintage equipment. I'm sure
Trevino would have a thing or two (or three or four or five) to pass on.
--
Bill Simot
ChrisTheHeretic
: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:49:10 GMT, ChrisTheHeretic
: Neither of us do, and that's why its ridiculous.
Actually, I do. Whether it's scoring average, batting average,
ERA, or whatever, the numbers don't back up the notion that
today's players are better at these particular things. They
strongly suggest that things haven't changed much, and, in
the case of basketball, they show that today's players are
much worse.
cb
ChrisTheHeretic
: > :
: > : Please explain your scientific method for comparing Lebron James to Dr.
: >
: > I didn't compare Lebron James to Julius Erving.
:
: Not specifically but in general you did. Remember? "Today's basketball
: players are far worse than those of twenty years ago. Not even close." So
: todays players, James and Kobe and Iverson and Duncan and on and on are far
: worse than those from the 1984 all star game, which would include Rolando
: Blackman, Norm Nixon, Larry Nance, Jack Sikma, Calvin Natt, Michael Ray
: Richardson, Terry Cummings, Sidney Montcrief and Bernard King.
Bernard King was in that All Star Game? Cool.
But, yeah, take today's All Stars and put them against the All
Stars of 1984 (leveling for age), and the 1984 team will win by
20.
BTW, it's pretty cute that you take today's superstars and
compare them to 1984's reserves. But players like Rolando
Blackman could play circles around today's All Star reserves.
: > However, if you want to look at shooting percentages, turnovers,
: > etc., you'll find the data to support my argument. Today's NBA
: > players lack the fundamental skills that earlier players were
: > expected to master.
:
: Make sure you through in defense in that calculation. Shooting over faster,
: taller more athletic players may have some effect on those stats.
Not when it's the "faster, taller, more athletic players" that
are supposed to be superior in the first place.
: > : The current players are bigger, stonger and faster and that will always
: > be
: > : the case, steroids or not.
: >
: > They're also worse at basketball. There's not much correlation
: > between "bigger, stronger and faster" and improved play when
: > you are talking about a game of skill.
:
: Of course there is.
No, there isn't. Bigger, stronger and faster will take your
20 handicap golfer and leave him a 20 handicap golfer. It will
take a poor shooter in basketball and leave him a poor shooter
in basketball. It has minimal positive effect.
: > : Can you imagine Wes Unseld, who was both the MVP
: > : and Rookie of the Year in the same year, or Dave Cowens attempting to
: > guard
: > : Shaq or Tim Duncan?
: >
: > I can sure imagine Bill Russell guarding them. I can imagine
: > almost anyone guarding Shaq, as long as the rules of basketball
: > are, you know, enforced. Shaq is a terrible basketball player.
:
: If almost anyone can guard Shaq then why are you not suiting up and making
: 10 mil a year?
Because the refs don't enforce the rules for Shaq. Duh. You
don't read very carefully.
: > Can you imagine any modern player trying to keep up with Wilt
: > or Maravich for pure scoring? Kobe, maybe.
:
: Yea I can, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Tracy MacGrady.
*spewage*
IVERSON?!
OK, I'm done. You obviously are trolling me here.
cb
ChrisTheHeretic
: From: ChrisTheHeretic
:
: : Name a sport where the modern athlete isn't superior to the
: old-timers. You
: : can't.
:
: >I've already named golf, which is pretty self-evident. Golfers
: >today are no better than their predecessors, nor are they any
: >worse. It's pretty much a constant.
:
: You don't play much tournament golf, do you?
: Most of the local tournaments here are dominated by high school or
: college players. I'm sure it's the same where you live.
It's always been that way, Bret. All that proves is that
the best amateurs are the ones who have time to play every
day, or are too young to have turned pro yet. Shocking!
: Ask any of the Seniors who have played with Tiger who is better.
: I'm sure you'll get the same answer every time.
Better at what? Better at jaw-dropping shots? Sure. Better
at winning major championships? Not yet. Better at course
management? Not by a long shot.
: Even Jack concedes
: that it's a different game today, although he gives more credit to the
: equipment than most.
It's the equipment and the courses, which, while nominally
longer, play about the same as the old courses due to the new
turf strains. Scoring averages remain constant.
: >Baseball is another. Set aside steroids, and today's hitters
: >are no better than those of any other era (assuming of course
: >one includes Negro leagues talent from that era). Today's
: >pitchers are probably *worse*.
:
: It's hard to tell where the modern players would be without steroids,
: and while I'm sure guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Pete Rose
: would be great hitters in any era, the pitching today is MUCH better.
Yeah, just look at those low ERAs! *boggle*
: People used to marvel at Bob Feller and Nolan Ryan who could throw
: the ball 98-100 mph. Now every team has at least one guy who can bring
: the heat.
Dude. If there are five pitchers in baseball who can bring it
at 100 mph, I'd be floored. This just isn't so.
: Ty Cobb never saw a split-fingered fastball coming at him at
: 95 mph.
He also never hit the modern "live" ball, either.
: >Today's basketball players are far worse than those of twenty
: >years ago. Not even close.
:
: Today's players are bigger, stronger, and faster. Other than that,
: it's a wash.
Their fundamentals are awful.
: >And of course bowling has never been the same since Randy
: >Brown retired.
:
: Well after that embarrassing incident where his thumb got stuck in the
: ball what would you have done?
Good point.
cb
Tom & Linda
<capr...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:1104822093.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, Lets say you could take three todays best golfers; Enie Els, Phil
> Mickelson and Tiger woods, and send them back in time have them play a
> round with Ben Hogan Sam Snead and Byron Nelson and have them all play
> with clubs from that era. Then bring those same guys forward to today
> to play around with the latest equipment. Which group would fare
> better with the others equipment. My money would be on Ben, Sam and
> Byron.
>
I think it would be fun to add a 3rd group. A "tweener" group. Guys who
played between the old timers and today's guys.
Nicklaus, Palmer and Player.
Next question though... How do you leave Bobby Jones off the first list?
--Tom
ChrisTheHeretic
:
: <capr...@usa.com> wrote in message
Fine, a fourth group. Jones, Hagen and Sarazen.
cb
Rov...@webtv.net
Here's my list of candidates for the all era's challenge:
1) 1910 - Vardon, Braid, and Taylor (about 16 British Opens, 1 US Open
among them). They played very little golf outside of Britain because
there was very little golf being played outside of Britain at that time.
2) 1930 - Jones, Hagen, and Sarazen ( about 7 US Opens, 6 British
Opens, 7 PGA's, 1 Masters among them)
3) 1950 - Hogan, Nelson, and Snead (over 150 tour wins among them, about
22 Majors)
4) 1960 - Palmer, Player, and Casper (over 120 tour victories among
them, and over 20 Majors)
5) 1980 - Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson (over 120 Tour victories among them
and about 30 Majors)
6) 1990 - Faldo, Norman, Price (a myriad of worldwide victories and
about 10 Majors)
7) 2000 - Woods, Els, Singh (a work still in progress, about 13 Majors)
IMO, the combo of (Jones, Hagen, Sarazen) and (Hogan, Snead, Nelson) are
nearly equal at the top. The Hogan group could have done better in
Majors if WWII hadn't come along and if they had played more often in
the British Open (I think cumulatively they only played in about 4 or 5
British Opens). The Jones group would have done better in Majors if WWI
hadn't interupted, if the Masters existed in their prime years, and if
Jones (an amateur) had been allowed to play in the PGA Championship.
Individually, Jones, Nicklaus, and Woods form a triumverate of their
own.
As for technology, there was a huge transition between the hickory shaft
era and the steel shaft era (around 1930), and there has been a
similarly huge transition since the pro's preferred ball has gotten
longer and straighter starting about 15 years ago and ending a few years
back with the complete demise of the wound ball and the rise of giant
driver heads. I think few modern players would do especially well with
the hickory game because hickory golf was not a game you could mechanize
on the practice range - it was nearly 100% feel and awareness. But
neither could the hickory stars have mastered the modern game because
they were not as physically imposing as today's players. On the other
hand, the Hogan group started out playing hickory golf as kids but
adapted to steel shafts quite easily. I'm sure they could have adapted
to the modern game with little difficulty. So, in the final analysis,
I'll give the edge to the Hogan group.
Roverii
Tom & Linda
>
> Have you tried hitting a wooden headed driver lately? I have. I took my
> old Titleist wooden driver from the early 1980's to the range one day this
> past summer just to see what I could do with it. Damn, it was hard to
> hit!
> I used to hit it pretty good back in them days. Impact felt awful, and I
> couldn't get any trajectory or distance out of it. IMO, getting used to
> the
> old wooden drivers would be the hardest adjustment for the
> Ernie/Phil/Tiger
> team. I think Hogan/Snead/Nelson would adust to modern metal drivers much
> more quickly.
>
>
Imaging trying to adjust to hickory shafts.
Back then... all your irons rusted... not just your lob wedge.
--Tom
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
ChrisTheHeretic wrote:
> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> :
> : Howard Brazee wrote:
> : > On 4-Jan-2005, "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com"
> : <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > > Going backwards, it would be interesting. The inferior
> : > > equipment would tend to minimize the differences between
> : > > golfers. Going forward it would tend to amplify them.
> : >
> : > Why is that?
> : >
> : > Certainly there was a wider variety of swing styles back then,
but I
> : believe
> : > that was because more players learned to play without swing
lessons.
> :
> : The equipment today amplifies small differences in swing speed.
>
> ...but de-emphasizes differences in precision.
Precision is in increments. Variations in precision, especially
on the longer shots where differences will be larger, are kinda
digital or quantum in nature. GIR, fairways hit, that kinda thing are
a either or. Distance is continuous. Furthermore, distance
decreases the demands on precision (closer I am, the easier it
is to hit the target area). Basically it's hard for the precision
advantage to "keep up" with the distance advantage. Which is probably
why the short knockers compete on the tour, but the longer guys
win.
Bruce Newman
"ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
[...]
> Basically it's hard for the precision
> advantage to "keep up" with the distance advantage. Which is probably
> why the short knockers compete on the tour, but the longer guys
> win.
Contrary to the popular "Steady Eddie" position of many RSG posters,
I've frequently said that distance _does_ matter, at least in terms of
winning versus just playing well. I have not said it as well as this
however! Very well put.
Howard Brazee
On 4-Jan-2005, MacHamish <rjim...@comcast.remove.net> wrote:
> We've got Hogan, Snead, and Nelson from the 40's-50's and Ernie, Phil, and
> Tiger (why not VJ?) from the 90's-00's. How about Nicklaus, Watson, and
> Trevino from the 70's-80's? It needs to be a three-way match.
Ask Old Tom if he remembers the old timers that we have forgotten.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Bruce Newman wrote:
> In article <1104929854.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Basically it's hard for the precision
> > advantage to "keep up" with the distance advantage. Which is
probably
> > why the short knockers compete on the tour, but the longer guys
> > win.
>
> Contrary to the popular "Steady Eddie" position of many RSG posters,
> I've frequently said that distance _does_ matter, at least in terms
of
> winning versus just playing well. I have not said it as well as this
> however! Very well put.
All factors matter. Your weakest area matters the most. The
relative importance of each is the hard part to quantify. The
long knockers comment can be countered by the fact that they
keep making the courses longer. I'd say though that the
fact that they make Tour courses more difficult by lengthening
them, instead of shrinking them tends to support the length
over accuracy point of view.
Steve
> Actually, I do. Whether it's scoring average, batting average,
> ERA, or whatever, the numbers don't back up the notion that
> today's players are better at these particular things. They
> strongly suggest that things haven't changed much, and, in
> the case of basketball, they show that today's players are
> much worse.
>
> cb
Explain to me how you can make a comparison based on ERA or batting average
or scoring average? Sounds like the only way you would agree that todays
baseball players are better is if ERAs were lower and batting averages were
higher. Does that not strike you as insane? How does scoring average prove
anything. If you are talking about one guy on one team then it may show
that his teamates stink. It could be that the rules have changes such as
the 3 point line or no hand checking or relax zone defense rules.
I am going to ask for the 3rd and final time, give me one sport that can be
measured by time or distance or some other truely independent stat where
todays best of the best do not have a better performance than 20 or more
years ago.
Steve
Howard Brazee
> All factors matter. Your weakest area matters the most. The
> relative importance of each is the hard part to quantify. The
> long knockers comment can be countered by the fact that they
> keep making the courses longer. I'd say though that the
> fact that they make Tour courses more difficult by lengthening
> them, instead of shrinking them tends to support the length
> over accuracy point of view.
Tour courses are made more difficult both ways. Some courses have very narrow
fairways and very punitive roughs. It's easy to add some length for a
tournament than to narrow the fairway, but for a U.S. Open they go to the extra
effort.
BowTie - Chevy
never-ending fetish for having the winner of the Open come in at no
better than even par. You call it "extra effort". It seems like every
year there is at least one hole where the ball will not stop near the
hole. Period.
Oh, they go nuts with the rough too. I recall at Bethpage Black, the
number 10 hole required such a carry that half the field could not get
to the fairway. It then becomes goofy golf and is to their (that of the
USGA) detriment.
YMMV
Ken
Howard B -
ChrisTheHeretic
:
When I talk about precision in this case, I mean in terms of
sweet spot contact. Lack of such precision with older equipment
greatly diminishes both distance and accuracy in a way that
isn't seen with modern equipment.
cb
ChrisTheHeretic
: I am going to ask for the 3rd and final time, give me one sport that can be
: measured by time or distance or some other truely independent stat where
: todays best of the best do not have a better performance than 20 or more
: years ago.
I answered that question the first time you asked it.
cb
Bobby Knight
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>: Precision is in increments. Variations in precision, especially
>: on the longer shots where differences will be larger, are kinda
>: digital or quantum in nature. GIR, fairways hit, that kinda thing are
>: a either or. Distance is continuous. Furthermore, distance
>: decreases the demands on precision (closer I am, the easier it
>: is to hit the target area). Basically it's hard for the precision
>: advantage to "keep up" with the distance advantage. Which is probably
>: why the short knockers compete on the tour, but the longer guys
>: win.
>
>When I talk about precision in this case, I mean in terms of
>sweet spot contact. Lack of such precision with older equipment
>greatly diminishes both distance and accuracy in a way that
>isn't seen with modern equipment.
>
>cb
precision in the steel shafts that those mentioned used. The distance
was increased by the changing of the ball, going to new metals for
heads, and the advent of shafts other than steel. None of these made
much of a difference in a top pro hitting the ball straight, but it
did to us amateurs.
If you're talking about hitting the sweet spot, those pros hit the
sweet spot with whatever club they're using. That does make a
difference in slight mis-hits for them, but not a big deal...since
they don't have that many mis-hits.
Distance is the only factor IMHO.
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
ChrisTheHeretic
: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:16:59 GMT, ChrisTheHeretic
: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >: Precision is in increments. Variations in precision, especially
: >: on the longer shots where differences will be larger, are kinda
: >: digital or quantum in nature. GIR, fairways hit, that kinda thing are
: >: a either or. Distance is continuous. Furthermore, distance
: >: decreases the demands on precision (closer I am, the easier it
: >: is to hit the target area). Basically it's hard for the precision
: >: advantage to "keep up" with the distance advantage. Which is probably
: >: why the short knockers compete on the tour, but the longer guys
: >: win.
: >
: >When I talk about precision in this case, I mean in terms of
: >sweet spot contact. Lack of such precision with older equipment
: >greatly diminishes both distance and accuracy in a way that
: >isn't seen with modern equipment.
: Chris...we're talking about the greats here. There was no lack of
: precision in the steel shafts that those mentioned used.
Exactly.
Today's pros, however, have no need to be *that* precise
in how they strike the ball. Therefore, I hypothesize that
today's pros would be just as flummoxed by old equipment/
courses as yesterday's pros would be by modern courses.
IOW, I think that it would be pretty much a draw.
cb
Howard Brazee
On 5-Jan-2005, Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote:
> If you're talking about hitting the sweet spot, those pros hit the
> sweet spot with whatever club they're using. That does make a
> difference in slight mis-hits for them, but not a big deal...since
> they don't have that many mis-hits.
I thought Tiger experimented with wood woods a while back, but I'm not finding
his quote on the Web.
Bobby Knight
The operative phrase is "I think", and I suggest that, those who
state, *postitively, hands-down*, that one group is better, are just
overzealous fans of that group.
Steve
"ChrisTheHeretic" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:2T1sjvu...@redshark.goodshow.net...
Your answer was Golf. That is not an answer to my question. What
independent stat are you using to prove the older golfers are at least as
good if not better than the current ones. The problem in proving this is
that as equipment and yes players improve, partly because of fitness, partly
because of earlier training, Leadbetter Academy type places, they adjust the
courses appropriately. There is a reason they keep lengthening Augusta and
adding trees and bunkers, its not always been 7290 yards. If they had not
touched it in the last 20 years the winning scores would consistently be
well into the - double digits.
Steve
ChrisTheHeretic
: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:40:35 GMT, ChrisTheHeretic
: The operative phrase is "I think", and I suggest that, those who
: state, *postitively, hands-down*, that one group is better, are just
: overzealous fans of that group.
That's pretty much true.
In golf, I really think that it's up to any zealous fans
of whichever group to justify the relatively static stroke
averages of the top players over the years.
cb
ChrisTheHeretic
:
: "ChrisTheHeretic" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > Steve <stevebNoS...@comcast.com> wrote:
: >
: > : I am going to ask for the 3rd and final time, give me one sport that can
: > be
: > : measured by time or distance or some other truely independent stat where
: > : todays best of the best do not have a better performance than 20 or more
: > : years ago.
: >
: > I answered that question the first time you asked it.
: Your answer was Golf.
No it wasn't.
cb
ChrisTheHeretic
: Steve <stevebNoS...@comcast.com> wrote:
:
: : Now can you give me an example of a sport where old timers are better where
: : performance can be measured such as by time or distance?
:
: Nope. It's in games of skill where performance has remained
: constant or declined, as conditioning has become overemphasized
: in place of skills.
My answer, essentially, was, "No." Then I explained to you
why my contention is generally limited to games of skill.
cb
BowTie - Chevy
old guys would clearly be better. If we are talking the old guys with
modern equipment, I think they would adapt very quickly. To me, a clear
overall advantage to Snead, Hogan, Nelson.
Have you ever seen a picture of the famous Hogan "lost" 1-iron ? He had
worn a spot about the size of a dime right where you would expect.
Closer to the hosel than the toe. Centered on about the 3rd groove.
With modern equipment, Hogan would be murder. And if he had his
pre-wreck legs, forget about it.
Ken
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steve
"ChrisTheHeretic" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
So in the world of athletics, those that can be measured by distance, time
etc. such as track and field events, long jump, hurdles, pole vault do not
require skill? So to recap, you can not give me an example of athletics
which can be measured this way where todays players are clearly
outperforming those from yesterday but in those athletic events where you
can not accuratly measure performance, basketball, baseball, golf, you are
certain that todays players are no better than yesterdays.
Can I assume you never took any senior level college math classes?
Steve
ChrisTheHeretic
:
: "ChrisTheHeretic" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: > ChrisTheHeretic <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > : Steve <stevebNoS...@comcast.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : : Now can you give me an example of a sport where old timers are better
: > where
: > : : performance can be measured such as by time or distance?
: > :
: > : Nope. It's in games of skill where performance has remained
: > : constant or declined, as conditioning has become overemphasized
: > : in place of skills.
: >
: > My answer, essentially, was, "No." Then I explained to you
: > why my contention is generally limited to games of skill.
:
: So in the world of athletics, those that can be measured by distance, time
: etc. such as track and field events, long jump, hurdles, pole vault do not
: require skill?
Nearly all sports require some combination of skill and
athletic conditioning/ability. Some emphasize the former
more than the latter, and vice versa. The ones you mention
greatly emphasize conditioning/ability over skill. For
instance, I could get my long jump technique down honed
to the very best in the sport, and I'd still be a terrible
long jumper. Conversely, I bet I'd kick Lance Armstrong's
ass at bowling, no matter how well conditioned he may be.
: So to recap, you can not give me an example of athletics
: which can be measured this way where todays players are clearly
: outperforming those from yesterday but in those athletic events where you
: can not accuratly measure performance, basketball, baseball, golf, you are
: certain that todays players are no better than yesterdays.
I see no reason to think that they're any better, and in some
cases I see obvious reasons to believe that they are fundamentally
worse.
: Can I assume you never took any senior level college math classes?
Given your reading comprehension issues, you're the last person
in this thread who needs to be slinging that kind of shit around.
cb
Howard Brazee
On 5-Jan-2005, "Steve" <stevebNoS...@comcast.com> wrote:
> So in the world of athletics, those that can be measured by distance, time
> etc. such as track and field events, long jump, hurdles, pole vault do not
> require skill? So to recap, you can not give me an example of athletics
> which can be measured this way where todays players are clearly
> outperforming those from yesterday but in those athletic events where you
> can not accuratly measure performance, basketball, baseball, golf, you are
> certain that todays players are no better than yesterdays.
Golfing on the moon. Can't even get out the starting gate anymore.
Richard Wilson
the tour greens today wouldn't bother him.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
> : Chris...we're talking about the greats here. There was no lack of
> : precision in the steel shafts that those mentioned used.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Today's pros, however, have no need to be *that* precise
> in how they strike the ball. Therefore, I hypothesize that
> today's pros would be just as flummoxed by old equipment/
> courses as yesterday's pros would be by modern courses.
There is some forgiveness in the sweet spot of modern
equipment, although for distance, dead center still pays off.
However, for shaped shots my understanding is that precision
is still required.
Bobby Knight
<bowtie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No problem...you used the words "I think" and "to me". I think
differently.
Bobby Knight
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
When I first switched from blades to cavity backs I had a real problem
in that there were times (and still are) that the feel of hitting the
ball, was great....but the ball didn't fly as expected. Of course,
because the ball wasn't struck on sweet spot. That's the one great
thing about blades; instant feedback.
Carbon
> They did a computer simulated fight between Ali and Marciano in their
> primes. It was not computer graphics but actual footage from fights.
> Don't remember exactly when it was, but it must have been at least 20+
> yrs ago. If I recall correctly Marciano won that one. Maybe they can do
> something like that, specially with todays technology.
I read about that, I think in the People's Almanac IIRC. I suppose
"computer simulation" is magic pixie dust designed to confer legitimacy
upon what is otherwise a wild-assed guess. It's not possible to compare
the best from different eras, in golf or in boxing.
Besides, Ali would have cleaned his clock... ;-).
Carbon
> Ask any of the Seniors who have played with Tiger who is better. I'm
> sure you'll get the same answer every time. Even Jack concedes that
> it's a different game today, although he gives more credit to the
> equipment than most.
IOW he thinks he's better than Tiger.
BowTie - Chevy
ASAP.
He couldn't break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and a set of VIP's.
Ken
Scott Newell
news:crhced$7ct$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
There have been some great articles in the golf rag mags (Golf Digest, GOLF
Magazine) with touring professionals playing rounds with old time equipment.
Nick Price did a neat one about 3-4 years ago in Gof Digest where he played
with hickory shafted clubs and old, old irons from the 20-30s, a set
persimmon woods and steel shafted blades from the 50-60s, and a modern set
(graphite shafted woods/cavity backs).
I also saw one not too long ago with Luke Donald where he compared some old
clubs to modern equipment....other than the big headed drivers, he thought
most of the technological advances had come with the ball that anything.
There was a European event last year where during the pro-am day, all of the
pros played the round or a few holes with a collection of 50 year old clubs
(50th anniversary of something). A majority of the comments were on how
different the persimmon head steel shafted drivers played (unforgiving) vs.
the big 400+cc long graphite shafted clubs of today.
--
Scott D. Newell (newells *at* wsu *dot* edu)
Washington State University
"That shot is impossible!...Jack Nicholson
himself couldn't make it!"-- Homer Simpson
ChrisTheHeretic
: ASAP.
:
: He couldn't break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and a set of VIP's.
Ken, that's just silly. He could leave the Eye-O-Matic in the
bag all day and break 75 with just the irons.
cb
Carbon
> He couldn't break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and a set of VIP's.
1) *You* could break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and a set of VIPs.
2) Tiger is much better than you.
3) Tiger could break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and a set of VIPs.
Carbon
> Why should anyone think that Tiger is better than Nicklaus?
>
> I don't.
I think Tiger has more natural ability. Last year he couldn't find the
fairway and he was still 4th on the money list. He seems to be swinging
better lately. If he hits the ball straight, he wins majors. The end.
Whether he ends up winning more than 18, that's a different story...
Carbon
> I also saw one not too long ago with Luke Donald where he compared
> some old clubs to modern equipment....other than the big headed
> drivers, he thought most of the technological advances had come
> with the ball that anything.
I agree.
The other night the Golf Channel had Mark O'Meara on Playing Lessons
with the Pro trying to hit one of his old persimmon woods. It was
harder to hit, didn't go as far, and was less accurate. The newer
generation of drivers optimized for longer hitting balls like the
ProV1 are a benefit for all players, but they help the stronger
players on tour much more. How can upping your driving average 20
yards to 280 compete with driver 7-iron into a par-5?
However blades are pretty much blades. Many top players still use them
so they can't be that much of a disadvantage. And I believe most tour
quality players could learn to cope with a Bulls-Eye or 8802 blade
style putter pretty quickly. It's the driver and the ball that's
changed the game so much.
BowTie - Chevy
2. Whoa! Stop the presses! Tiger is better than me!
3. How are you able to post with your nose so far up Tiger's butt ?
Ken
+++++++++++++++++
Carbon -
BowTie - Chevy
the hospital in the Philippines. I would like Marciano's chances. I'll
give you that Ali would be the favorite since I regard him as the best
heavyweight ever.
Ken
Howard Brazee
Ali's peak was around the same time as Nicklaus' peak.
Ray Robinson's peak was considerably earlier if we want to include other weight
classes.
Carbon
> 1. I don't get paid $100M a year before I hit a shot. 2. Whoa! Stop
> the presses! Tiger is better than me! 3. How are you able to post
> with your nose so far up Tiger's butt ?
1. Irrelevant.
2. Obviously.
3. Irrelevant.
You claimed Tiger couldn't break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and blades. I
merely pointed out the blindingly obvious, vis., surely you can do it,
Tiger is way better than you, therefore Tiger can do it.
I think your dislike for Tiger is interferring with your objectivity.
BowTie - Chevy
persimmon woods and blade irons. Back when there was not such a thing
as even a Pittsburgh Persimmon Taylor Made. Secondly, you are deviating
from the original subject of this thread. My point is that if you put
Tiger (or Phil or VJ) back in the day playing with the antiques that
Snead and Hogan used (not to mention the terrible balls), they would
have a lot of trouble because the whole lot of them grew into the game
using equipment built with advanced technology.
Could Tiger break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and VIP irons ? Probably. How
dare me do anything but praise Tiger. Do I dislike Tiger ? Yes. He
earned it with his foul mouth and quick temper.
http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=19356&select=10562
Ken
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carbon -
BowTie - Chevy
Notice I said heavyweight. Ray Robinson may have been the best pure
boxer ever.
Ken
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Howard -
ChrisTheHeretic
: However blades are pretty much blades. Many top players still use them
: so they can't be that much of a disadvantage. And I believe most tour
: quality players could learn to cope with a Bulls-Eye or 8802 blade
: style putter pretty quickly. It's the driver and the ball that's
: changed the game so much.
And the courses! Course conditioning today is miles apart
from where it was 40 years ago. Much more roll in the fairway,
much better lies, much faster/truer greens.
cb
Bobby Knight
Carbon
> Could Tiger break 80 with an Eye-O-Matic and VIP irons ? Probably. How
> dare me do anything but praise Tiger. Do I dislike Tiger ? Yes. He
> earned it with his foul mouth and quick temper.
Also, he's black.
Carbon
I'd like to apologize for that one. I was going to erase it and respond
with something less inflammatory but I hit send by mistake. I wish Verizon
honored cancels, but they don't.