| |
Main
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:00:49
From: SteveASmith
Subject: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 09:53:09
From: multi
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:00:49 -0400, "SteveASmith"
<noratings@espn2.com > wrote:
>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
It is very difficult to find full-field statistics for most pre-1970
events. If you do find a source, please post it. However, we know
that most of the top golfers did not play much during WW II, which
allowed Nelson (who had a deferment) to compile records that can
probably never be matched. He retired after 1946, and his record of
wins went like this:
1935 - 1
1936 - 1
1937 - 2
1938 - 2
1939 - 4
1940 - 3
1941 - 3
1942 - 3
1944 - 8
1945 - 18
1946 - 6
Ray Charles can see that something funny is going on during WW II.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:01:02
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:g876f2hg54m3ksdijat8omu6afpfal6ln5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:00:49 -0400, "SteveASmith"
> <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare
>>what
>>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
>>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
>
> It is very difficult to find full-field statistics for most pre-1970
> events. If you do find a source, please post it. However, we know
> that most of the top golfers did not play much during WW II, which
> allowed Nelson (who had a deferment) to compile records that can
> probably never be matched. He retired after 1946, and his record of
> wins went like this:
>
> 1935 - 1
> 1936 - 1
> 1937 - 2
> 1938 - 2
> 1939 - 4
> 1940 - 3
> 1941 - 3
> 1942 - 3
> 1944 - 8
> 1945 - 18
> 1946 - 6
>
> Ray Charles can see that something funny is going on during WW II.
Except that WWII was longer than just 1945. How does the WWII theory
account for 1941 and '42?
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:43:16
From: multi
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:01:02 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> 1935 - 1
>> 1936 - 1
>> 1937 - 2
>> 1938 - 2
>> 1939 - 4
>> 1940 - 3
>> 1941 - 3
>> 1942 - 3
>> 1944 - 8
>> 1945 - 18
>> 1946 - 6
>>
>> Ray Charles can see that something funny is going on during WW II.
>
>Except that WWII was longer than just 1945. How does the WWII theory
>account for 1941 and '42?
The US wasn't at war until the end of 1941, so there's nothing to
explain for that year. In 1942, golf was cut way back. Several
events, including the US Open, were cancelled, and the government
actually ordered the halt of golf ball production for the duration of
the war, to conserve rubber. In 1943, only three PGA events were
played, and Nelson didn't win any of them. By 1944, we were clearly
winning, and things started to loosen up.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 22:24:27
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> Except that WWII was longer than just 1945. How does the WWII theory
> account for 1941 and '42?
The United States wasn't in WWII during the 1941 golf season.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 09:40:57
From:
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
SteveASmith wrote:
> Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
> they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
> field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
There are roughly 8 times more golfers today than in 1950.
-PA
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 11:46:09
From: damnyankee
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
> > Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
> > they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
> > field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
>
> Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
> conditions. It evens out.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
So true. Tiger is playing much better equipment on better courses than
all the other players currently on the PGA. Heck, I think he even
plays in better weather. Shhh, don't tell Ken....
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:53:25
From: Bob Brown
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
> So true. Tiger is playing much better equipment on better courses than
> all the other players currently on the PGA. Heck, I think he even
> plays in better weather. Shhh, don't tell Ken....
The best comparison is to the players that are playing NOW. They are playing
against the same people, on the same courses, with the same equipment or at
least with the same equipment available for them to play.
I also think he'd stack up pretty well to ANYBODY that has ever played with
all of them playing their best. Tiger wins when he sucks. He also won this
past weekend while NOT being in the lead after 36 holes, which he has done
before.
It's all theoretical comparing to players of the past , a conversation that
cannot be completed. Let's just enjoy seeing him play and realize that many
of us have seen Palmer, Nichlaus and Woods all play in our lifetime. That's
pretty good for one lifetime.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:17:26
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com > wrote:
> Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
> they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
> field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
conditions. It evens out.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:01:25
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3e20snImthN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>> Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare
>> what
>> they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a
>> smaller
>> field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4
>> days.
>
> Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
> conditions. It evens out.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 13:33:00
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>
>>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
>>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
>>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
>
>
> Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
> conditions. It evens out.
>
But everybody had the same conditions.
What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the
number of people playing.
Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
players--but the proportions should be similar)?
According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US
population in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300
million people.
Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of
golfers is proportionally higher today than back then.
Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were
the top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from
Tiger to the next best golfer all the more amazing.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2005 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2005/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 17:08:46
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@clubdor.com > wrote in message
news:4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net...
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare
>>>what they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a
>>>smaller field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot
>>>over 4 days.
>>
>>
>> Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
>> conditions. It evens out.
>>
>
> But everybody had the same conditions.
>
> What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the number
> of people playing.
>
> Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
> potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
> players--but the proportions should be similar)?
>
> According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US population
> in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300 million people.
>
> Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of golfers
> is proportionally higher today than back then.
>
> Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were the
> top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from Tiger to
> the next best golfer all the more amazing.
>
>
> Mike
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2005 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2005/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the transportation is so much better that foreign golfers and golfers on
different coasts can play in tournaments ... and the conditions on the tour
are so much better that more people find touring dedirable, and universities
have great golfing programs and the fame of TV has attracted more people,
and other professional atheletes are playing golf ... it's not a sissy or
elitist sport anymore. And women and minorities are playing more and
conditioning makes it possible for people to play longer, and teaching and
measurement equipment for measuring launch angles and velicities and for
video taping is around, and ... I forgot the question.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 02:37:25
From: puttster
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:AFLIg.1654$nL2.91@fed1read02...
>
> And the transportation is so much better that foreign golfers and golfers
on
> different coasts can play in tournaments ... and the conditions on the
tour
> are so much better that more people find touring dedirable, and
universities
> have great golfing programs and the fame of TV has attracted more people,
> and other professional atheletes are playing golf ... it's not a sissy or
> elitist sport anymore. And women and minorities are playing more and
> conditioning makes it possible for people to play longer, and teaching and
> measurement equipment for measuring launch angles and velicities and for
> video taping is around, and ... I forgot the question.
>
Darn good point about the transportation. In WW2 you couldn't drive because
of gas rationing. A train ticket could cost more than the top prize money.
Maybe the number of golfers worldwide was the same, but in the 40's and 50's
tournaments attracted mostly the locals. With so many of the world class
players shut out for financial reasons, if you could just show up you had a
chance.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:06:29
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
In article <4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net >,
Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com > wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
> >>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
> >>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
> >
> >
> > Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
> > conditions. It evens out.
> >
>
> But everybody had the same conditions.
>
> What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the
> number of people playing.
>
> Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
> potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
> players--but the proportions should be similar)?
>
> According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US
> population in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300
> million people.
>
> Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of
> golfers is proportionally higher today than back then.
>
> Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were
> the top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from
> Tiger to the next best golfer all the more amazing.
Let's also not forget that minorities were prohibited from
playing the PGA tour until 1961; no Trevino, Peete, Tiger, Singh,
Campbell, ... and that the Americans had essentially no
competition from abroad during the 40s and 50s: No Seve, Sergio,
Els, Goosen, ... Put that together with Palmer and the onset of
TV coverage that increased the popularity of golf tremendously,
starting in the early 60s, and I think it's undeniable that the
pool of talent is now way way beyond anything Hogan, Snead, and
Nelson faced.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:21:05
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
> In article <4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net>,
> Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> > SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
>> >>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
>> >>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
>> >
>> >
>> > Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
>> > conditions. It evens out.
>> >
>>
>> But everybody had the same conditions.
>>
>> What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the
>> number of people playing.
>>
>> Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
>> potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
>> players--but the proportions should be similar)?
>>
>> According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US
>> population in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300
>> million people.
>>
>> Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of
>> golfers is proportionally higher today than back then.
>>
>> Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were
>> the top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from
>> Tiger to the next best golfer all the more amazing.
>
> Let's also not forget that minorities were prohibited from
> playing the PGA tour until 1961; no Trevino, Peete, Tiger, Singh,
> Campbell, ... and that the Americans had essentially no
> competition from abroad during the 40s and 50s: No Seve, Sergio,
> Els, Goosen, ... Put that together with Palmer and the onset of
> TV coverage that increased the popularity of golf tremendously,
> starting in the early 60s, and I think it's undeniable that the
> pool of talent is now way way beyond anything Hogan, Snead, and
> Nelson faced.
That explains why Nelson's stroke average was as low as
it was... no competition!
Sometimes I wonder if anybody here actually *plays* golf.
Even good golfers / smart guys like Mike get caught in this
silly loop of illogic that field quality has something to do
with the actual shots and scores. Weird.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 22:03:05
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net>,
>>Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>>
>>>>SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
>>>>>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
>>>>>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
>>>>conditions. It evens out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But everybody had the same conditions.
>>>
>>>What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the
>>>number of people playing.
>>>
>>>Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
>>>potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
>>>players--but the proportions should be similar)?
>>>
>>>According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US
>>>population in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300
>>>million people.
>>>
>>>Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of
>>>golfers is proportionally higher today than back then.
>>>
>>>Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were
>>>the top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from
>>>Tiger to the next best golfer all the more amazing.
>>
>>Let's also not forget that minorities were prohibited from
>>playing the PGA tour until 1961; no Trevino, Peete, Tiger, Singh,
>>Campbell, ... and that the Americans had essentially no
>>competition from abroad during the 40s and 50s: No Seve, Sergio,
>>Els, Goosen, ... Put that together with Palmer and the onset of
>>TV coverage that increased the popularity of golf tremendously,
>>starting in the early 60s, and I think it's undeniable that the
>>pool of talent is now way way beyond anything Hogan, Snead, and
>>Nelson faced.
>
>
> That explains why Nelson's stroke average was as low as
> it was... no competition!
>
> Sometimes I wonder if anybody here actually *plays* golf.
> Even good golfers / smart guys like Mike get caught in this
> silly loop of illogic that field quality has something to do
> with the actual shots and scores. Weird.
>
Explains it? Of course it doesn't. But what it does affect is the
likelihood of winning. Nothing above says anything about stroke
average, Chris--it's about the level of competition, and how the number
of potential competitors was much less.
This effect has been noted in baseball (Stephen Jay Gould, rest his
soul), who noted that in the early days of baseball, when the sport was
young and exactly how to play it was less well understood, it was easier
for the better players to exploit a better understanding of it. In
other words, the variance of performance was far greater.
As the sport matured, the ability levels of players tightened up, i.e.,
less variance. Gould used this to explain the demise of the .400
hitter. As the mean stayed the same (interestingly, the average hitting
of teams in the leagues has tended to hover around .260), but the
variance of hitting declined, the tails of the distribution moved toward
the mean. Previously, .400 hitters were in the far right tail of the
distribution; now, as the tail has pulled back toward the mean, it's
just so hard to exploit the weaknesses of other players. There aren't
as many!
The same phenomenon has been occuring in golf--which makes Tiger's
performances all the more awe-inspiring. If you take Tiger out of the
equation, how much variation is there among the remaining players? Not
all that much. Who would be the dominant player if Tiger were to
disappear? Phil? Vijay? They're good, but they're not *that* much
better than the rest. Tiger is.
Population matters--a lot. The more there are playing, the more
potential competition there is.
I don't believe that if you took yesterday's players, gave them today's
equipment etc., that they would, by and large, be able to win. They
were the best of their era, but only that.
Players today are just so much better. This is easy to see in lots of
objective measures of sports performances--jumping, running, swimming,
you-name-it. Athletes today are just so much better than what they were.
Guys like Nelson, Hogan, Hagan, etc. were dominant precisely because
they were in the far end of the distribution, and there was both so much
variation, and so little relative competition.
They were good, but not a one of them could have given Tiger a game. I'm
not sure they could have given Davis Love III a game, to say nothing of
Vijay, Phil, and a number of others.
There. I said it. Today's athletes are the best of all time,
including golfers. That's true in every sport in which objective
measures of performance are done. It's folly to believe that the same
improvement hasn't characterized golf as well.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:01:48
From: Joe
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
>> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net>,
>>> Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> That explains why Nelson's stroke average was as low as
>> it was... no competition!
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder if anybody here actually *plays* golf.
>> Even good golfers / smart guys like Mike get caught in this
>> silly loop of illogic that field quality has something to do
>> with the actual shots and scores. Weird.
>>
>
> Explains it? Of course it doesn't. But what it does affect is the
> likelihood of winning. Nothing above says anything about stroke
> average, Chris--it's about the level of competition, and how the number
> of potential competitors was much less.
>
> This effect has been noted in baseball (Stephen Jay Gould, rest his
> soul), who noted that in the early days of baseball, when the sport was
> young and exactly how to play it was less well understood, it was easier
> for the better players to exploit a better understanding of it. In
> other words, the variance of performance was far greater.
>
> As the sport matured, the ability levels of players tightened up, i.e.,
> less variance. Gould used this to explain the demise of the .400
> hitter. As the mean stayed the same (interestingly, the average hitting
> of teams in the leagues has tended to hover around .260), but the
> variance of hitting declined, the tails of the distribution moved toward
> the mean. Previously, .400 hitters were in the far right tail of the
> distribution; now, as the tail has pulled back toward the mean, it's
> just so hard to exploit the weaknesses of other players. There aren't
> as many!
>
> The same phenomenon has been occuring in golf--which makes Tiger's
> performances all the more awe-inspiring. If you take Tiger out of the
> equation, how much variation is there among the remaining players? Not
> all that much. Who would be the dominant player if Tiger were to
> disappear? Phil? Vijay? They're good, but they're not *that* much
> better than the rest. Tiger is.
>
> Population matters--a lot. The more there are playing, the more
> potential competition there is.
>
> I don't believe that if you took yesterday's players, gave them today's
> equipment etc., that they would, by and large, be able to win. They
> were the best of their era, but only that.
>
> Players today are just so much better. This is easy to see in lots of
> objective measures of sports performances--jumping, running, swimming,
> you-name-it. Athletes today are just so much better than what they were.
>
> Guys like Nelson, Hogan, Hagan, etc. were dominant precisely because
> they were in the far end of the distribution, and there was both so much
> variation, and so little relative competition.
>
> They were good, but not a one of them could have given Tiger a game. I'm
> not sure they could have given Davis Love III a game, to say nothing of
> Vijay, Phil, and a number of others.
>
> There. I said it. Today's athletes are the best of all time,
> including golfers. That's true in every sport in which objective
> measures of performance are done. It's folly to believe that the same
> improvement hasn't characterized golf as well.
>
> Mike
>
Dead on Mike. I had been looking for the right thread amongst the many
that try and deal with "Who is the greatest..." to bring up this very
point.
Gould built a perfect model with which to look at the change over time
in performance. The important part of this work is that it points out
the interplay between hitters, fielding and rules changes. It really
mimics the evolutionary process whether life forms, military weapons or
economic systems.
The next piece of the general evaluation is to look the Dimaggio "streak
of streaks" and lay that model against golf, with attention to the
probabilities. I don't have a clear model in mind to look at individual
scoring to assess the variation. Intuitively I think you need to look
at total event scores. The use of the scoring average statistic
accounts for course differences but smoothes out the very factors that
are needed for evaluation.
Joe
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:34:06
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
In article <0T3e24bhInmoN34@redshark.goodshow.net >,
Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
> > In article <4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net>,
> > Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> > SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare
> >> >>what
> >> >>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a
> >> >>smaller
> >> >>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4
> >> >>days.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
> >> > conditions. It evens out.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But everybody had the same conditions.
> >>
> >> What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the
> >> number of people playing.
> >>
> >> Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
> >> potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
> >> players--but the proportions should be similar)?
> >>
> >> According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US
> >> population in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300
> >> million people.
> >>
> >> Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of
> >> golfers is proportionally higher today than back then.
> >>
> >> Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were
> >> the top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from
> >> Tiger to the next best golfer all the more amazing.
> >
> > Let's also not forget that minorities were prohibited from
> > playing the PGA tour until 1961; no Trevino, Peete, Tiger, Singh,
> > Campbell, ... and that the Americans had essentially no
> > competition from abroad during the 40s and 50s: No Seve, Sergio,
> > Els, Goosen, ... Put that together with Palmer and the onset of
> > TV coverage that increased the popularity of golf tremendously,
> > starting in the early 60s, and I think it's undeniable that the
> > pool of talent is now way way beyond anything Hogan, Snead, and
> > Nelson faced.
>
> That explains why Nelson's stroke average was as low as
> it was... no competition!
>
> Sometimes I wonder if anybody here actually *plays* golf.
> Even good golfers / smart guys like Mike get caught in this
> silly loop of illogic that field quality has something to do
> with the actual shots and scores. Weird.
I plead guilty to the silly loop of illogic that field quality
has something to do with field quality, the latter perhaps
pertinent to the OP's post, which was about field quality.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 02:46:12
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
> In article <0T3e24bhInmoN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
> Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
>> > In article <4lgr71F1rr1aU1@individual.net>,
>> > Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> >> > SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare
>> >> >>what
>> >> >>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a
>> >> >>smaller
>> >> >>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4
>> >> >>days.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
>> >> > conditions. It evens out.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But everybody had the same conditions.
>> >>
>> >> What I think is fundamentally different between then and now is the
>> >> number of people playing.
>> >>
>> >> Back in the 1950s, say, what was the population of the US (or, how many
>> >> potential golfers were there in the US, setting aside international
>> >> players--but the proportions should be similar)?
>> >>
>> >> According to one set of figures I found (census bureau), the US
>> >> population in 1950 was about 152 million people. Today, about 300
>> >> million people.
>> >>
>> >> Twice the number of potential golfers, and I'll bet the number of
>> >> golfers is proportionally higher today than back then.
>> >>
>> >> Tiger is the top of a very, very big heap. Hogan, Nelson, et al. were
>> >> the top of comparatively smaller heaps. It makes the distance from
>> >> Tiger to the next best golfer all the more amazing.
>> >
>> > Let's also not forget that minorities were prohibited from
>> > playing the PGA tour until 1961; no Trevino, Peete, Tiger, Singh,
>> > Campbell, ... and that the Americans had essentially no
>> > competition from abroad during the 40s and 50s: No Seve, Sergio,
>> > Els, Goosen, ... Put that together with Palmer and the onset of
>> > TV coverage that increased the popularity of golf tremendously,
>> > starting in the early 60s, and I think it's undeniable that the
>> > pool of talent is now way way beyond anything Hogan, Snead, and
>> > Nelson faced.
>>
>> That explains why Nelson's stroke average was as low as
>> it was... no competition!
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder if anybody here actually *plays* golf.
>> Even good golfers / smart guys like Mike get caught in this
>> silly loop of illogic that field quality has something to do
>> with the actual shots and scores. Weird.
>
> I plead guilty to the silly loop of illogic that field quality
> has something to do with field quality, the latter perhaps
> pertinent to the OP's post, which was about field quality.
You mean as in his lede?
> >> >>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare
> >> >>what they did to what Tiger is doing today.
Yes, I can see how my citing *what* *they* *did* is less relevant
than what their competition did. Of course.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:51:25
From: multi
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:21:05 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>That explains why Nelson's stroke average was as low as
>it was... no competition!
It might. The lowest scores on the PGA tour today are often found at
the events that get the weakest fields. Fans want to see birdies.
Tournament organizers want to see fans. If you're holding an event in
1945, and the field is very weak, you're going to give them a very
easy course setup. And Nelson will be like a cat among canaries.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:49:09
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: When Nelson and Hogan won weren' the field's smaller
|
Mike Dalecki <mike@clubdor.com > wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> SteveASmith <noratings@espn2.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hogan and Nelson were the best of their time but I'm trying to compare what
>>>they did to what Tiger is doing today. It is much easier to beat a smaller
>>>field which eliminates the chance of a random pro getting hot over 4 days.
>>
>>
>> Scoring average, shitty equipment, comparatively shitty course
>> conditions. It evens out.
>
> But everybody had the same conditions.
Like I said: scoring average despite the inferior equipment and
course conditions. The answer is in the shots.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
|
