Could a top ten golfer today survived in pre 60’s golf?

[CB67]

How amazing would it be to be able to go back and forth in time and put iconic athletes in their prime against one another.

 

Sports dynasty’s too. 
 

I wish we could see modern day Moe Norman. What a gem it is watching his old clinic videos. 
 

“The golf swing is just a hockey slap shot with a club” - Moe 

They should do an exhibition charity round where the boys play with the old hickory shafts or something like that it would be awesome to watch and see the stats on the top tracer to see the difference in carry and what not. 
 

Have a little skins game where they play with equipment from different eras. I’d watch that for sure.

[pinhigh27]

39 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

And my answer is not necessarily. Unless you believe:

 

1.it makes no difference to your accuracy if you swing as hard as possible 

 

2.technology, particularly in the driver, benefits everyone equally 

 

 

now, I am positive neither of those is true. Put it together, and the fastest swinging guys benefit the most from modern drivers, and would struggle the most in the 60s

 

As James said as well, the short game has changed beyond recognition 

 

 

They wouldn’t swing as fast likely if they went back in time. Idk why that’s so hard for you to realize 

[milesgiles]

2 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

They wouldn’t swing as fast likely if they went back in time. Idk why that’s so hard for you to realize 

 

So they’d all dial it back by the same amount?

 

again, I reject your reality

[pinhigh27]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

So they’d all dial it back by the same amount?

 

again, I reject your reality

No they would dial it back down as needed, to keep the ball on the planet. Obviously bryson would likely need to dial down more than Xander. 

 

[golfsticks]

Pin it's a waste of your time, milesgiles is a troll.    He said a "genuine" pull hook is an OTT move.  He actually said that....🤣 

Edited November 29, 2020 by golfsticks
grammar

[ThinkingPlus]

45 minutes ago, golfsticks said:

Pin it's a waste of your time, milesgiles is a troll.    He said a "genuine" pull hook is an OTT move.  He actually said that....🤣 

Actually OTT can produce pull hooks or pull slices or straight pulls.  It depends on the relationship between clubface and the path (path is hard left for right hand OTT).  Most of the time, OTT moves are made by beginners who leave the face open to path in addition to hard left and steep path (again for righties).

[golfsticks]

No disagreement in general TP, but you'd have to read the thread:  How can I swing from the inside? for context.   That said,  there is no such thing as a "genuine" pull hook as milesgiles suggested because it is a binary process-  the ball either pull hooks, or it doesn't, there is no middle ground short of mud balls, cut covers, trick faces, etc.,  and the cause is the discussion.  

 

[Jack Pearsall]

On course they’d do very well. They’d adjust to the gear and less than perfect greens. As someone noted, they might well have the hardest time making a living. There wasn’t a lot of money about, travel was much more rigorous and difficult, incredibly limited endorsements that were offered to not so many. The 1960’s pro golfer lifestyle would be the most difficult aspect for them to excel at. The stronger modern players would be as long or longer than Jack. 

[milesgiles]

2 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

No they would dial it back down as needed, to keep the ball on the planet. Obviously bryson would likely need to dial down more than Xander. 

 

 

Exactly.. so why on earth do you think he’d do just as well if he’s having to give up more of his advantage ?

 

come on man, you’re better than this 

[milesgiles]

2 hours ago, golfsticks said:

Pin it's a waste of your time, milesgiles is a troll.    He said a "genuine" pull hook is an OTT move.  He actually said that....🤣 

 

Avi none

handicap not displayed

swing not shown

qualifications unknown 

 

 

 

 

 

credibility, zero 

[pinhigh27]

bc he won quite a few tournaments and was an elite player before he was unusually long. 

[xmanhockey7]

5 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

No, didn’t say that either!

Lmao. Alright dude.

[golfsticks]

57 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Avi none

handicap not displayed

swing not shown

qualifications unknown 

 

credibility, zero 

 

.....yet we find no 'likes' on any of your posts in this thread.  No need wondering why.

[milesgiles]

12 hours ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

But they aren't hitting that modern 5 wood 320 either. Also our modern top 10 would not be able to tweak/optimize swings on monitors. No shaft options, much less shaft fittings, everything is a forged blade/small head wood. Some modern players simply wouldn't adjust to that. Does it affect the top 10? Probably not. But maybe 150-200? Possibly.

 

Regardless, I think the biggest adjustment would be putting and chipping, and whoever figured it out would stay and whoever didn't wouldn't. They'd be putting a much softer feeling ball on basically shag carpet. (The greens in caddyshack for example) Ball slaloming its way to the hole. Putter tech would be the anser in 1966, otherwise a combination of bullseyes, goosenecks, 8802's and cash-ins, and other slender blades of the same style; the mallet certainly isn't a refined technology at the time. Wedge tech would be minimal and preferences for bounces/grinds would be more limited. Like everything else in golf, short game is going to decide this one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youre also parachuting the top 10 into prime Jack, Arnold and Gary years.. there weren’t as many good players back then, but there’s 3 more great ones..

[ALIF]

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Avi none

handicap not displayed

swing not shown

qualifications unknown 

 

 

 

 

 

credibility, zero 

Uh, Taylor has serious game and speed. I’d put my money on him all day long over you for sure. And I don’t mean that beratingly to you.

[xmanhockey7]

Just watched a video of Seve in the 70s take a rip at a driver, driving a narrow green with water left and trees on the right. 290 yards. He didn’t swing easy. I don’t know how he could have done that with a persimmon driver. 

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Just watched a video of Seve in the 70s take a rip at a driver, driving a narrow green with water left and trees on the right. 290 yards. He didn’t swing easy. I don’t know how he could have done that with a persimmon driver. 

 

Presume the 10th at the Belfy, he was the first to drive it in a tournament.

[naval2006]

A gifted golfer is just that... gifted. Anytime and with any equipment and schedule. They always figure out how to hit it solid to shoot low scores. 

[phizzy30]

On 11/27/2020 at 4:50 PM, pinhigh27 said:

who is to say they would swing the same way? Elite athletes adapt to the equipment/game of their era. I'm sure Jack or Hogan would swing different if they were playing in 2020. 

Not so sure if Jack would've had a different swing now.  He was one of the longest drivers of the ball back in the day.  He won a lot of tournaments and I'm pretty sure he would have similar success today as well.  Like Tiger, Jack had that intimidation factor and tough mental fortitude which works for any era of golf.  I played last year with HoF NFL running back Eric Dickerson at Los Robles.  He is still ripped, his swing speed and athletic ability is extraordinary for a man his age.  Lefty, single handicap and would rip his driver 280 plus.  Great genetics and talent come to mind.  I believe that he could play in the NFL today and be just as good as back in the day.  A legend is a legend and would probably thrive during any era in pro sports in general. 

[RichieHunt]

There was a discussion about this on Twitter.

 

My consensus is that if a player like Snead came to the Tour in the modern age with modern equipment, course design, etc. the top players would beat the brakes off him.

 

However, if a modern player tried to play in 1951 with 1951 equipment, course design, etc...Snead would beat the brakes off them.

 

Too much of a change.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[dlygrisse]

I think the guys who are really good ball strikers would excel even more.  Back then there was a bigger reward for hitting fairways and striking the ball flush.  Most players tended to swing smoother or around 80%, where today a lot of them swing all out because the equipment allows them to get away with a slight mishit.  Miss hitting a driver by a 1/2 inch was a much bigger problem back then than today.  It's much easier to go from the old equipment to the new than vice versa, players like Jack, Watson, Couples etc. who came on tour playing persimmon had no issue adjusting to titanium.  I did the same, for me driving just got easier and easier to control.  

 

That being said, these guys are all great athletes, they would adapt, Bryson might be the only one who would have real issues, although I think he would think it through and figure how to play the old stuff, he probably would have never gone down the road he is now with the old equipment.  We are all a product of our times.  

[dlygrisse]

13 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

There was a discussion about this on Twitter.

 

My consensus is that if a player like Snead came to the Tour in the modern age with modern equipment, course design, etc. the top players would beat the brakes off him.

 

However, if a modern player tried to play in 1951 with 1951 equipment, course design, etc...Snead would beat the brakes off them.

 

Too much of a change.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

Why use Sneed as an example, he was a long hitter and a great ball striker, his only real weakness man have been putting? But  that was more of a late career issue.  They guy from back then who would struggle today would be the short hitter like Runyon.  There was always room for a fairways and greens guy back then to hang with the big boys, not so sure today.  I don't think Faldo would be that good today, he was a great iron player, but even with todays equipment I doubt if he would have ever hit it more than 280-ish.  He probably would have been good, but not a 6 time major winner,.  Maybe 2 like Zach Johnson.  Corey Pavin is another.  

[dlygrisse]

I think Greg Norman would have been better today than in his prime.  HIs aggressive style would have worked better with todays equipment, especially the ball.  

[RichieHunt]

2 hours ago, dlygrisse said:

Why use Sneed as an example, he was a long hitter and a great ball striker, his only real weakness man have been putting? But  that was more of a late career issue.  They guy from back then who would struggle today would be the short hitter like Runyon.  There was always room for a fairways and greens guy back then to hang with the big boys, not so sure today.  I don't think Faldo would be that good today, he was a great iron player, but even with todays equipment I doubt if he would have ever hit it more than 280-ish.  He probably would have been good, but not a 6 time major winner,.  Maybe 2 like Zach Johnson.  Corey Pavin is another.  

 

Because that's what some people were saying...that the players of today would beat the brakes off Snead.

 

As far as Faldo, he was a great iron player and a great putter.  He was probably a bit longer than Zach and I think a better overall iron player, particularly from the Red Zone (175-225 yards).  I'd probably compare Faldo more to Spieth when Spieth was hot, but Spieth was longer and hit the driver more often off the tee.

 

Either way, if the top-10 players were playing in 1989 equipment and conditions Faldo would take their money.  If '89 Faldo had to play in modern conditions and equipment, he wouldn't be as effective.

 

 

 

 

RH

[kylemd]

The ball they played had alot to do with how they addressed shots and swing the club. Balata balls spun like crazy and the older era guys had swing and mechanics tailored to that ball. They hit it lower and controlled it. Shot shape off driver was way different. No big high rainbows. It come out low then rise and turn.....alot. I grew up playing balata balls. This was pre Titleist professional or ProV1. Just balata 100 or 90 compression liquid core wound balls. You could bend and curve the snot out of it. And also cut the cover and give it a nice smiley face. New balls on cart path.... still good to finish the round. Balata.... break out a new one mate. They were not bomb and gouge but control control control the spin. Tigers game was born out of it.... he still plays the spiniest ball possible. Balls today aren’t affected as much by wind. Not so with balata. “ Hitting it on the screws” was a real thing. I still think Trevino Hogan Player Miller Watson etc.would be as good today as yesteryear. Yes They played different clubs but they would learn to adapt. Some are just damn gifted. Same to be said for this gen of guys. Theyd figure it out. Id LOVE to see just one PGA tournament with required old equipment.... maybe give them sub 6800 yrd course. And bumpy greens. Our current group would still figure it out and score. Hell you could give them garden rakes and spades and they find a way to score. They are Elite for a reason. 

[A.Princey]

The answer to this thread is, very, VERY easily. The current amount of talent & the level of competitiveness to even reach the PGA, let alone mini-tours is FAR beyond what happened in the 60s. Sheer sample size of guys trying to make it today guarantees a better player pool compared to back then, just based on numbers. Are they not human, like the men of the '60s? They all know how to swing a club and play the game in an elite fashion, why would anyone suspect their "abilities" to crumble by regressing to older equipment. They'd adapt, and do so quite well.

[bilbry57]

13 hours ago, A.Princey said:

The answer to this thread is, very, VERY easily. The current amount of talent & the level of competitiveness to even reach the PGA, let alone mini-tours is FAR beyond what happened in the 60s. Sheer sample size of guys trying to make it today guarantees a better player pool compared to back then, just based on numbers. Are they not human, like the men of the '60s? They all know how to swing a club and play the game in an elite fashion, why would anyone suspect their "abilities" to crumble by regressing to older equipment. They'd adapt, and do so quite well.

Absolutely agree with this post. I learned to play in mid 70’s at 17 and within 3 years I Was Playing # 5 or6 for a NAIA college team my ave tournament score was 78.The ball and equipment were not much different in 70’s and I certainly not a great player. 
The point being if a average player could improve enough to play in college in 3 years any current top ten player IMO would definitely have been elite if they choose golf.  They might not have become a golfer back then because of the money.  Which changed first with Arnie and even more so with Tiger.

Edited December 2, 2020 by bilbry57

[scooterhd2]

On 11/29/2020 at 8:16 AM, milesgiles said:

 

And my answer is not necessarily. Unless you believe:

 

1.it makes no difference to your accuracy if you swing as hard as possible 

 

2.technology, particularly in the driver, benefits everyone equally 

 

 

now, I am positive neither of those is true. Put it together, and the fastest swinging guys benefit the most from modern drivers, and would struggle the most in the 60s

 

As James said as well, the short game has changed beyond recognition 

 

 

 

in every sport, you are absolutely foolish if you are not developing your skillset to cater to the modern style and rules. especially with the advancement in data and metrics. If you are an aspiring basketball player, you better be working on your 3 point shot. There is little reason to put loads of work into a long range 2 pointer. That is dying. The post game is dying. 3 and D is what the game calls for. If you are an aspiring baseball player, you better be working on your HR power. Positional defenses and the new ball make that the most efficient way to score. Contact swings for singles or bunts are degrading skills. And golf is no different. Today, a 330 drive in the rough provides a better scoring opportunity than being 270 in the fairway, so guys have catered their games to hit for distance. It's not a fault of theirs. They are smart for developing themselves this way.

 

but you are making a big assumption that the fastest swinging players couldnt slow down to improve the quality of the strike. Bryson did not start his distance quest because he likes the taste of chunky shakes. It's a strategy to improve scores in todays game. If overnight the rules changed and courses changed to only persimmon woods and super tight fairways, his strategy would change. And his focus on developing skills would change. And he would work on those with as much intensity and vigor as he has on his body and distance. Lets not forget he was a state champion as a junior and the NCAA champion, and US Amateur winner. All before the insane CHS. He is a really talented player. His amateur career rivals Jacks and Phils. And no doubt that he, DJ, Rahm, JT, Rory would all do just fine dropped into any era as teenagers and given the change to cater their skills to what was in front of them. 

 

 

[Barfolomew]

No.... I mean yes

[Ghost of Snead]

33 minutes ago, scooterhd2 said:

 

in every sport, you are absolutely foolish if you are not developing your skillset to cater to the modern style and rules. especially with the advancement in data and metrics. If you are an aspiring basketball player, you better be working on your 3 point shot. There is little reason to put loads of work into a long range 2 pointer. That is dying. The post game is dying. 3 and D is what the game calls for. If you are an aspiring baseball player, you better be working on your HR power. Positional defenses and the new ball make that the most efficient way to score. Contact swings for singles or bunts are degrading skills. And golf is no different. Today, a 330 drive in the rough provides a better scoring opportunity than being 270 in the fairway, so guys have catered their games to hit for distance. It's not a fault of theirs. They are smart for developing themselves this way.

 

but you are making a big assumption that the fastest swinging players couldnt slow down to improve the quality of the strike. Bryson did not start his distance quest because he likes the taste of chunky shakes. It's a strategy to improve scores in todays game. If overnight the rules changed and courses changed to only persimmon woods and super tight fairways, his strategy would change. And his focus on developing skills would change. And he would work on those with as much intensity and vigor as he has on his body and distance. Lets not forget he was a state champion as a junior and the NCAA champion, and US Amateur winner. All before the insane CHS. He is a really talented player. His amateur career rivals Jacks and Phils. And no doubt that he, DJ, Rahm, JT, Rory would all do just fine dropped into any era as teenagers and given the change to cater their skills to what was in front of them. 

 

 

 

Lots of excellent aspiring baseball players don't have home run power and never will. They'd be better off working on hitting to all fields making positional defenses useless and getting on base so the home run hitters can drive them in. 

 

Same thing with golf - there's a reason the tour's average driving distance is not 330. Lots of tour and excellent ams just can't get there and never will. The distance gap can be made up with excellent iron and short games. I'll take Webb Simpson week to week over Bryson any day.