Could a (1)4 handicap win the Open Championship in the 1860's

[MtlJeff]

Looking back maybe it seems like 1910 ~ and the 1860's are similar but there is a 50 YEAR difference between those tournaments. Look how much golf changed from 1960 to 2010

 

1865 there was 12 competitors in the open and guys were several strokes over par. If the thread is about playing in say, 1865, i think a modern golfer wins easily, than has his choice of any fair lady in the city to show more other modern maneuvers to.

 

Canada wasn't even a country in 1865! Thats how long ago that was.

 

Once you start getting into like, Bobby Jones era....Way different

[Shilgy]

16 hours ago, vallygolf said:

Agronomy is everything here.  Average stimp when Eddie Stimpson invented the stimpmeter in 1937 was 2.5 feet.  Admittedly the USGA has since modified to the "speed stick", but in 1963 Stimpson measured the US open greens at 2.7 feet, and then finally 6.5 by the USGA in the mid 70's.  That is a big difference in playablility.  Also Ouimet Played a course at 6200 yards.  Brookline today plays closer to 7000.  Big difference.   Ouimet played par 5's at 430, 435, 520, and 470 yards respectively.  1913 oepn had 2 par 4's over 400 yards,  and 3 par fours 300 yards or less.  Scratch golfer playing to every pin on a 6200 yard course without penal greens.  I think it is very doable.  Weather factor goes to the better ball and equipment.

I really need a source on those stimps. 1963 US Open greens at 2.7??  That’s slower than a fairway! If they changed the system then those numbers are meaningless but there is now way the greens were less than 7 back then. 

[dlygrisse]

19 hours ago, sekrah said:

 

 

This..  I don't get all these people acting like this is some huge disadvantage that a modern player couldn't figure out in 1 or 2 holes.  5 strokes a round?  Gtfo.

 

Yes a 4 handicap would not only win if they time-travelled back there with modern equipment, they would likely win by a pole.  For the same reason any decent college pitcher today would win about 15 Cy Youngs in the early 1900s because no one was throwing mid-90s or snapping nasty sliders off back then.

And no, Tom Jones would have almost zero % chance to make the modern pro tour if he were time-machined to the future to play with modern equipment, even with a year of practicing with it.  Athletically, human bodies have evolved very fast from those days. 

 

 

A modern pitcher doesn't make it past the 6th inning today, in the early 1900's the best pitchers were required to pitch about 25 CG's a year.  So yeah, a modern pitcher stays in AAA, or goes to the bullpen and no one knows he existed.  

[Ferguson]

10 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Guy hits one drive and the Morris’s and Willie Park would be taking turns beating on him - so no. 
 

“Ken ye say ‘graphite hard stepped’ now laddie?”

 

Interesting take.   Laws was were different then. 

Golf beatings were literal.  

 

 

[m d g]

20 hours ago, sekrah said:

Athletically, human bodies have evolved very fast from those days.

Training has evolved. Nutrition is better so people are taller/stronger. Video, TrackMan, etc. have improved feedback. But human bodies have not evolved in any significant way in the last hundred years.

 

In other words, if we could measure a human born 100 years ago from a baby to an adult, and then magically transport him into modern times and watch him grow up and measure him again, he would certainly be different. But that difference would be accounted for by the health of his mother, pre-natal care (or lack thereof), and diet and environment (cleaner air, etc.), not genetics...

 

As an example, my father has three brothers. So four boys. The first three were born from 1928 to 1934 into a very poor family that had very little meat (protein) or milk (calcium). Those brothers were average for the time...5' 9" and 140lbs as adults. The last brother was born in the mid '40s, and the family situation was much better. He ate more meat and drank more milk. He was 6' 1" and about 180lbs as an adult. Their father was 5' 8" and the mother 5' 1", both immigrants from poor families.

 

So we have 'evolved' in the sense that we have controlled our environment better, and we have figured out ways to improve athletic performance with better science and technology.

[Shilgy]

21 minutes ago, m d g said:

Training has evolved. Nutrition is better so people are taller/stronger. Video, TrackMan, etc. have improved feedback. But human bodies have not evolved in any significant way in the last hundred years.

 

In other words, if we could measure a human born 100 years ago from a baby to an adult, and then magically transport him into modern times and watch him grow up and measure him again, he would certainly be different. But that difference would be accounted for by the health of his mother, pre-natal care (or lack thereof), and diet and environment (cleaner air, etc.), not genetics...

 

As an example, my father has three brothers. So four boys. The first three were born from 1928 to 1934 into a very poor family that had very little meat (protein) or milk (calcium). Those brothers were average for the time...5' 9" and 140lbs as adults. The last brother was born in the mid '40s, and the family situation was much better. He ate more meat and drank more milk. He was 6' 1" and about 180lbs as an adult. Their father was 5' 8" and the mother 5' 1", both immigrants from poor families.

 

So we have 'evolved' in the sense that we have controlled our environment better, and we have figured out ways to improve athletic performance with better science and technology.

So to sum it up….based on nutrition MOST humans have evolved physically in the last century?  Does it really matter why?  Humans are a fair bit larger on average in developed countries than they were a century ago.

[m d g]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

So to sum it up….based on nutrition MOST humans have evolved physically in the last century?  Does it really matter why?  Humans are a fair bit larger on average in developed countries than they were a century ago.

Maybe it's just semantics, but being bigger and stronger because of nutrition is not 'evolution' in the traditional sense...we haven't 'evolved,' we're just bigger. And we're also much fatter...being obese doesn't give us any sort of evolutionary advantage. We might survive a famine should it hit, but heart disease will most likely kill us first.

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, m d g said:

Maybe it's just semantics, but being bigger and stronger because of nutrition is not 'evolution' in the traditional sense...we haven't 'evolved,' we're just bigger. And we're also much fatter...being obese doesn't give us any sort of evolutionary advantage. We might survive a famine should it hit, but heart disease will most likely kill us first.

I get that but your 6’1” uncle is bigger and stronger than his siblings. Does it really matter if it’s nutrition or evolution?

 

Perhaps the larger (no pun intended) reason for more bigger players is simply population.  There are nearly 4 times as many people on earth as there were in 1900.  And more of them have sporting opportunities than the working class kids had back then.  So if you had a sport like golf from a century ago for every top player there are at least 4 equivalent players today. In my opinion it’s way more than that.

There are over twice as many people today than there were in 1970 and yet folks get upset when it is suggested there are more great players on Tour today.

[m d g]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

I get that but your 6’1” uncle is bigger and stronger than his siblings. Does it really matter if it’s nutrition or evolution?

 

Perhaps the larger (no pun intended) reason for more bigger players is simply population.  There are nearly 4 times as many people on earth as there were in 1900.  And more of them have sporting opportunities than the working class kids had back then.  So if you had a sport like golf from a century ago for every top player there are at least 4 equivalent players today. In my opinion it’s way more than that.

There are over twice as many people today than there were in 1970 and yet folks get upset when it is suggested there are more great players on Tour today.

For the sake of this thread, no , it doesn't matter. It's just not evolution was my point...maybe a poor one.

[Ferguson]

18 hours ago, 2bGood said:

One thing not mentioned is the added pressure the modern golfer would feel. I have to assume that Tom Morris Sr & Jr, wanted to win the Open's but it did not carry anywhere near the prestige as it does now. I mean how many people really cared about golf back then? So the old time gofers felt allot less pressure as the OPEN is not then what it is now.

 

 

Can the 4 HC call it the British Open? 

 

 

[ColinKelvin]

23 hours ago, RCGA said:

Yeah you'd get some squirrelly lies but a modern hybrid will cut through that a lot easier.

 

Assuming you can keep the ball on the planet, you'll win just based off of the strokes gained metrics from length. 

Having played Prestwick myself (how many people in this discussion have?), I couldn't disagree more that all you need to do is show up and hit it long to shoot two rounds under 80.  You need an excellent short game and you need to hit it straight.  More often than not, you need to be a good wind player too.

 

I would also say that the average 4 handicapper is not necessarily strong enough to bomb and gouge their way out of the rough there even today, never mind what it was probably like 150 years ago in its earliest form (even though it was shorter and many holes have been rerouted).  As for "on the planet", well, if you go 5 yards off to the right off the first tee on the first shot of the day you are OOB, and if you go 15-20 yards offline left you will struggle to find your ball in knee-deep hay...

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, Ferguson said:

 

 

Can the 4 HC call it the British Open? 

 

 

No. 

[RCGA]

1 hour ago, ColinKelvin said:

Having played Prestwick myself (how many people in this discussion have?), I couldn't disagree more that all you need to do is show up and hit it long to shoot two rounds under 80.  You need an excellent short game and you need to hit it straight.  More often than not, you need to be a good wind player too.

 

I would also say that the average 4 handicapper is not necessarily strong enough to bomb and gouge their way out of the rough there even today, never mind what it was probably like 150 years ago in its earliest form (even though it was shorter and many holes have been rerouted).  As for "on the planet", well, if you go 5 yards off to the right off the first tee on the first shot of the day you are OOB, and if you go 15-20 yards offline left you will struggle to find your ball in knee-deep hay...

 

• Looking at Prestwick weather, the wind doesn't get above maybe 15km/h all week. BBC describes it as a "gentle breeze". I think the amount of wind over there in general is so overblown, pardon the pun.
• Do you need a excellent short game when the greens were cut like my front lawn?
• I'm sure Scott Fawcett from Decade could come up with one hell of a game plan to contend with the rough (using satellites and shotlink data) and Chris Trott from TaylorMade could customize a bag

 

[sekrah]

4 hours ago, dlygrisse said:

A modern pitcher doesn't make it past the 6th inning today, in the early 1900's the best pitchers were required to pitch about 25 CG's a year.  So yeah, a modern pitcher stays in AAA, or goes to the bullpen and no one knows he existed.  

 

Because they are throwing so much harder and putting pressure on joints the human body wasn't meant to handle.  To think a modern pitcher couldn't drop down an throw 90% effort and smoke those old timers that installed plumbing after the game is pretty delusional I gotta say.

 

Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher of that era and it's been estimated through study of the few videos of him that he averaged an 88 mph fastball, occasionally touching 90.  He was sub 1.50 era for a decade.  He wouldn't even be a bullpen piece today.  Most of the pitchers in that era were throwing low-mid 80s. They wouldn't have a prayer today.  If a 22-year old Babe Ruth were time machined to today, he wouldn't even get drafted.

Why is the commonsense basic concept that humans are more athletic and better at sports than humans 100+ years ago so offensive to some people?

 

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by sekrah

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

No. 

 

Then, no, a 4HC could not deal with the clothing and course conditions of the era, and as a result would not win.

[2bGood]

10 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

Then, no, a 4HC could not deal with the clothing and course conditions of the era, and as a result would not win.

The clothing is an interesting one. Typical modern attire would no doubt result in a dress code violation, so they would have to wear a modern sports coat and tie. I have now doubt you could come up with something very functional that met 1860 dress codes. 

[dlygrisse]

1 hour ago, sekrah said:

 

Because they are throwing so much harder and putting pressure on joints the human body wasn't meant to handle.  To think a modern pitcher couldn't drop down an throw 90% effort and smoke those old timers that installed plumbing after the game is pretty delusional I gotta say.

 

Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher of that era and it's been estimated through study of the few videos of him that he averaged an 88 mph fastball, occasionally touching 90.  He was sub 1.50 era for a decade.  He wouldn't even be a bullpen piece today.  Most of the pitchers in that era were throwing low-mid 80s. They wouldn't have a prayer today.  If a 22-year old Babe Ruth were time machined to today, he wouldn't even get drafted.

Why is the commonsense basic concept that humans are more athletic and better at sports than humans 100+ years ago so offensive to some people?

 

 

Because if Walter Johnson pitched today he would probably throw harder.  it works both ways.  All the sudden a modern pitcher drops down to 85-90% and they are no longer smoking guys.  

 

Persimmon era guys didn't swing full out like say a Justin Thomas does every swing, but that doesn't mean Jack or Arnie or Snead couldn't stand on it and get the CHS up to modern levels when needed.  They just didn't do it as often.  

 

Babe Ruth would be equivalent to Mike Trout today.  No doubt in my mind, especially a young Babe.  

[TiScape]

No

[sekrah]

1 hour ago, dlygrisse said:

Because if Walter Johnson pitched today he would probably throw harder.  it works both ways.  All the sudden a modern pitcher drops down to 85-90% and they are no longer smoking guys.  

 

Persimmon era guys didn't swing full out like say a Justin Thomas does every swing, but that doesn't mean Jack or Arnie or Snead couldn't stand on it and get the CHS up to modern levels when needed.  They just didn't do it as often.  

 

Babe Ruth would be equivalent to Mike Trout today.  No doubt in my mind, especially a young Babe.  

 

We are talking if the players themselves were transported instantaneously to the other era.  

 

And we have no idea how hard Walter Johnson would throw if he was born in 1987 instead of 1887.  It'd be a completely different person.

 

 

We know what exactly how fast Roger Bannister ran. 

 

 

 

[m d g]

7 hours ago, sekrah said:

 

Because they are throwing so much harder and putting pressure on joints the human body wasn't meant to handle.  To think a modern pitcher couldn't drop down an throw 90% effort and smoke those old timers that installed plumbing after the game is pretty delusional I gotta say.

 

Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher of that era and it's been estimated through study of the few videos of him that he averaged an 88 mph fastball, occasionally touching 90.  He was sub 1.50 era for a decade.  He wouldn't even be a bullpen piece today.  Most of the pitchers in that era were throwing low-mid 80s. They wouldn't have a prayer today.  If a 22-year old Babe Ruth were time machined to today, he wouldn't even get drafted.

Why is the commonsense basic concept that humans are more athletic and better at sports than humans 100+ years ago so offensive to some people?

 

 

He was a prodigy, but Bob Feller threw right around 100mph and pitched 279 complete games from the mid '30s to the mid '50s. Not bad for an old timer : )

[Nels55]

11 minutes ago, m d g said:

He was a prodigy, but Bob Feller threw right around 100mph and pitched 279 complete games from the mid '30s to the mid '50s. Not bad for an old timer : )

I saw a quote of Bob Feller talking about who the fastest pitchers were.  I remember him saying that he was the fastest pitcher of all that he ever saw other then The Big Train who was even faster and was the fastest who ever lived.  

 

LOL Feller was clocked at 107mph with 'modern technology':

https://didthetribewinlastnight.com/blog/2017/08/16/modern-technology-for-1946-measured-fellers-heater-at-107-mph/

 

Really I have no idea but it is interesting to speculate...

[iBanesto]

The simple answer is no. 🤨

 

Willie Park Sr's worst score was 60 😂

 

Tom Morris Sr broke 60 every round and still lost 😀

 

Final leaderboard

Source: ^[6]

Place	Player	Country	Score
1	Willie Park, Sr.	Scotland	55-59-60=174
2	Tom Morris, Sr.	Scotland	58-59-59=176
3	Andrew Strath	Scotland	180
4	Robert Andrew	Scotland	191
5	George Daniel Brown	England	192
6	Charlie Hunter	Scotland	195
7	Alexander Smith	Scotland	196
8	William Steel	Scotland	232

[m d g]

24 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

I saw a quote of Bob Feller talking about who the fastest pitchers were.  I remember him saying that he was the fastest pitcher of all that he ever saw other then The Big Train who was even faster and was the fastest who ever lived.  

 

LOL Feller was clocked at 107mph with 'modern technology':

https://didthetribewinlastnight.com/blog/2017/08/16/modern-technology-for-1946-measured-fellers-heater-at-107-mph/

 

Really I have no idea but it is interesting to speculate...

I went to a game when Nolan Ryan pitched many years ago. He was warming up when we were some of the first to walk in. The park was almost empty, and the sound of the ball hitting the glove was amazing : )

[mosesgolf]

Can he play with modern ball and modern clubs?   Because he wouldn't be a 4 with the feathery ball and those 85cc drivers.

[2bGood]

52 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Can he play with modern ball and modern clubs?   Because he wouldn't be a 4 with the feathery ball and those 85cc drivers.

Yes. That is th point of the thread. 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, iBanesto said:

The simple answer is no. 🤨

 

Willie Park Sr's worst score was 60 😂

 

Tom Morris Sr broke 60 every round and still lost 😀

 

Final leaderboard

Source: ^[6]

Place	Player	Country	Score
1	Willie Park, Sr.	Scotland	55-59-60=174
2	Tom Morris, Sr.	Scotland	58-59-59=176
3	Andrew Strath	Scotland	180
4	Robert Andrew	Scotland	191
5	George Daniel Brown	England	192
6	Charlie Hunter	Scotland	195
7	Alexander Smith	Scotland	196
8	William Steel	Scotland	232

They must of lit it up on holes 13-18. 

Edited July 24, 2021 by 2bGood

[iBanesto]

20 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

They must of lit it up on holes 13-18. 

 

No shots dropped on those holes.

[isaacbm]

2 hours ago, iBanesto said:

The simple answer is no. 🤨

 

Willie Park Sr's worst score was 60 😂

 

Tom Morris Sr broke 60 every round and still lost 😀

 

Final leaderboard

Source: ^[6]

Place	Player	Country	Score
1	Willie Park, Sr.	Scotland	55-59-60=174
2	Tom Morris, Sr.	Scotland	58-59-59=176
3	Andrew Strath	Scotland	180
4	Robert Andrew	Scotland	191
5	George Daniel Brown	England	192
6	Charlie Hunter	Scotland	195
7	Alexander Smith	Scotland	196
8	William Steel	Scotland	232

So 8th place was 58 shots back after 3 rounds? Pretty deep field there….

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

So 8th place was 58 shots back after 3 rounds? Pretty deep field there….

But I have read it here on wrx that depth does not matter. Winners gonna win or some such. So no matter who you threw at them Old Tom, Young Tom and Willie Park would have won.

[2bGood]

7 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

So 8th place was 58 shots back after 3 rounds? Pretty deep field there….

If you do the math, he was more tan 1.6 shot PER HOLE off the lead. 

 

I have to say I am finding some these different ways to look at the early Open's rather interesting.