Hogan's Stats. If they existed.

I did some searching here and only found a few well-known anecdotes about hogan's stats (not missing a fairway for the entire Open, etc.). Anyone have a decent guess?

For reference, this year, > 70% of FW's hit would get you in the top 10 on tour. And 70% GIR would be top 5. Could he be at those levels or above?

I'm curious as to how much of an outlier Hogan was if even his fellow pros marveled at his accuracy....

Thanks.

[quote name='Apex93' timestamp='1410294409' post='10091237']
I did some searching here and only found a few well-known anecdotes about hogan's stats (not missing a fairway for the entire Open, etc.). Anyone have a decent guess?

For reference, this year, > 70% of FW's hit would get you in the top 10 on tour. And 70% GIR would be top 5. Could he be at those levels or above?
I'm curious as to how much of an outlier Hogan was if even his fellow pros marveled at his accuracy....

Thanks.
[/quote]

Hogan's stats, if they existed, would probably be less impressive than nostalgic golf fans would like to admit if they were viewed in a comparison to today's game. Golf was a very different game with very different equipment. To think Hogan, as great as he was, would be able to rival modern ball striking stats is just not realistic.

However, it would be very impressive to see his stats compared to his peers at the time. I guarantee you he was head and shoulders above them.

[color=#555555]In May 1967, the editor of Cary Middlecoff's 1974 book The Golf Swing watched every shot that 54-year old Hogan hit in the Colonial National Invitational Open in Fort Worth, Texas. "Hogan shot 281 for a third-place tie with George Archer. Of the 281 shots, 141 were taken in reaching the greens. Of the 141, 139 were rated from well-executed to superbly executed. The remaining two were a drive that missed the fairway by some 5 yards and a 5-iron to a par-3 hole that missed the green by about the same distance. It was difficult, if not impossible to conceive of anybody hitting the ball better over a four-day span."[/color]

The dude was a LIVING LEGEND for a reason. The tall tales where told while he was still playing.

He must have been a beyond sh1tty putter among the all time greats if he was such a great ballstriker.

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1410459914' post='10102459']
He must have been a beyond sh1tty putter among the all time greats if he was such a great ballstriker.
[/quote]

Maybe the secret was not in the dirt, but on the practice green.

Dan Jenkins' books make references to similar stats you mentioned above. Of course, he'd played Colonial a thousand times by that point. He also said Hogan's putter was beyond heavy, fashioned out of a brass doorknob.

[quote name='Apex93' timestamp='1410543031' post='10107535']
[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1410459914' post='10102459']
He must have been a beyond sh1tty putter among the all time greats if he was such a great ballstriker.
[/quote]

Maybe the secret was not in the dirt, but on the practice green.

Dan Jenkins' books make references to similar stats you mentioned above. Of course, he'd played Colonial a thousand times by that point. He also said Hogan's putter was beyond heavy, fashioned out of a brass doorknob.
[/quote]

That's pretty crazy. On the shell's footage it also looked super flat.

From everything I read Hogan was a great putter before the accident. So his ball striking must have been just above the average tour pro. Then after the accident his putting wasn't as good and his ball striking improved. So I think pre accident he would have been a slightly above average ball striker and a great putter. Then after the accident his ball striking would have been well above average and his putting average or below.

[quote name='hoganswing' timestamp='1411002867' post='10136859']
From everything I read Hogan was a great putter before the accident. So his ball striking must have been just above the average tour pro. Then after the accident his putting wasn't as good and his ball striking improved. So I think pre accident he would have been a slightly above average ball striker and a great putter. Then after the accident his ball striking would have been well above average and his putting average or below.
[/quote]

He was never a good putter. He was clutch at times but before the accident he was just average. After he devolved the yips.

Watch the Shell match with Snead. He hit every fairway and every green, at 53 years of age. Some of the approaches were with fairway woods as well.

"[color=#282828]He was never a good putter." Disagree, one doesn't win 64 Tour events including 9 majors and the statement "He [/color][color=#282828]was never a good putter." be true...maybe he wasn't a great putter, but he was a good putter. And as stated earlier, post accident (in which he quite possibly suffered a detached retina in his left eye, which would have destroyed his depth perception) his putting declined over the remaining 22 +- years of his career on tour.[/color]

Still crazy to imagine what his GIR and proximity to the hole stats woulda been.

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1427737455' post='11246129']
Still crazy to imagine what his GIR and proximity to the hole stats woulda been.
[/quote]All we can do is guess but mine would be that his GIR would be great but proximity not so much compared to today's players.

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427996311' post='11269893']
[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1427737455' post='11246129']
Still crazy to imagine what his GIR and proximity to the hole stats woulda been.
[/quote]All we can do is guess but mine would be that his GIR would be great but proximity not so much compared to today's players.
[/quote]

with the conditions of the course and clubs back then compared to today I wonder if there's a way to do some scaling to make
stats comparable. Probably not.