Youthquake? Statistical Evidence Showing The PGA Tour Plays A Young(er) Man's Game

Strokes gained creator and stat guru Mark Brodie has crunched numbers as far back as possible and concluded that, at least based on Strokes Gained, the elite player of 1996 to 2004 was a lot older than today's top players.

Writing for Golf.com:

From 1987 until 1996, the average age of the top 100 players in total strokes gained steadily rose from 32.3 years to 36.5 years. In that decade-long stretch, Watson and contemporaries like Greg Norman, Tom Kite and Hale Irwin were playing competitively into their late forties. The average age of the top 100 players remained steady between '96 and '04.

Since '04, Broadie finds that the average age of the top 100 strokes gained players "plummeted from 36.5 to 33.0 years."

Comments

[P Thomas]

Isn’t that pretty much the very other major sport too??

[Hawkeye]

Proving what everyone already knows from looking at the world rankings by using a stastistical method of one's own invention, while not offering any discussion on what the reasons for this development might be other than "young players are better than ever"? That's a mathematician for you!

For further studies, look into the fact that four of the last seven Champion Golfers of the Year have been 40-somethings, while no US major has been won by someone on the far side of 40 since the 2004 PGA (compared to 1 in 6 US majors being won by the over-40-set in the 80s and 90s). Anything to do with modern-day course setup in America, besides the obvious reasons relating to technological developments in equipment and swing analysis, perhaps?

[In the grip of the game]

In 1988 or 99 there was an article in one of the golf magazines on the age at first major win. The prime years were around 28-34. The implication was that experience was a significant factor. Jack Nicklaus and Seve were unusually young. The article ended with those most likely to win in the near future, based on age, which included Woosnam and Olazabal, maybe even Payne Stewart. There were certainly several who made the breakthrough in the pre Tiger years only after serving their time.

[munihack]

To me this indicates the results of equipment changes and scoring in golf. In the balata-persimmon days a player had to learn to temper his power and use it judiciously. The risk reward aspect of hitting shots full out was pretty severe on the risk side. Now the equipment makes that part of the equation way more reward than risk so players adopt the bomb and gouge strategy and play full throttle until their bodies break. Years ago a player had to learn what what kind of shot was worth attempting to win an event without the miss costing him the event. Now you see players using the "scramble" of one strategy- go low and stay aggressive. Golf used to be 3D chess, now - not so much.

[Guy Fieri's Stomach]

I am wondering if we aren't just dealing with a stats illusion.

Great athletes in any sport have two characteristics - they excel head and shoulders above their peers, and they maintain excellence for a long time, longer than a typical player's career. It is rare to find a baseball player with a 20 year career who is not a very good player. The lesser players wash out more quickly. A third point is that in general an athlete's best days are from his mid-20s to mid-30s, with some variation between different sports. A 35 or even 45 year old Jack Nicklaus might have always beaten the 25 year old Keith Clearwaters, say, but 30 year old Jack beats 40 or 45 year old Jack almost every time.

If great players come along at a consistent rate, a rare bird arriving only once a decade or so maybe, then the average age of excellence will tend to be young. When computing an average, the overall effect of youth will "drown out" the rare great older player who is still winning. In other words, all things being equal, the average age of excellence should always be pulled toward that 25-35 year number. But all things are not always equal, historically. Great players don't always come along at a steady pace. Sometimes, several come on the scene together. If this happens, the youth effect will be very noticeable when they are young, and as they age they will pull up the average up, higher than under normal circumstances. When they finally do leave the game, the number will go back down.

The cohort of Nicklaus, Trevino, Wadkins, Floyd, Irwin, Kite, Faldo, etc. influenced the averages such that they trended up until this cohort was finally gone, in the early 00's. It then trended lower, as the overriding effect of youth took over. And now, with a new cohort of very good young players (Spieth, Thomas, Day, et al), youth is even more dominant. However, as they age, we might expect to see the number trend higher again.

I don't think it is because golf has changed. I think it is evidence of the more the game changes, the more it stays the same. If you'll pardon my translation of the French.... :-)

[muffybtrd]

Golfers are leaving college at a faster rate than before - one or two years of college, Junior and amateur golf are now getting the players better prepared for the pro tour. In addition Tiger Woods success at a young age have shown them, that you just need the mindset and not experience to win early. Then equipment today has allowed many more players to achieve elite status quickly

[muffybtrd]

Golfers are leaving college at a faster rate than before - one or two years of college, Junior and amateur golf are now getting the players better prepared for the pro tour. In addition Tiger Woods success at a young age have shown them, that you just need the mindset and not experience to win early. Then equipment today has allowed many more players to achieve elite status quickly

[Hugo Boss]

Golfers entering the PGA Tour at age 22 or 25 or whatever already have a 15-year career of winning championships in high level golf tournaments behind them. That was not true 30 years ago.