How should golf view it’s past?

[MattyO1984]

Seeing the 4 handicapper thread about competing in an early Open, got me thinking - how should we view the wins and achievements of past major championship winners?

 

We know the names (maybe just some of them) - Old and Young Tom Morris, Willie Park Jnr and Snr to J. H. Taylor, Harry Vardon & James Braid at The Open. Willie Anderson, John McDermott and Alex Smith at the US Open. All multiple major winners, all massive figures in the biggest and best golf tournaments that we still have today but were they any good? How far were they from playing the game as we know it in a modern sense? Where should they be ranked as major winners?

 

My feeling is that increasingly, it seems that the wins and achievements of guys like the aforementioned are increasing denigrated, pushed to the side as footnotes to history - yeah the competitions that they won are huge but they weren’t when they were competing for them. There was a thread a month or so ago where some posters almost seemed to ridicule these early winners because they were there when professional golf was in its infancy.

 

My questions if I can are:-

1. Is that fair?

2. Should we consider that there is a modern period when golf, as we know it, should be considered as being played, if so when is that?

3. From what player or players should we look at and think, yeah, they could compete on the Tour as it currently is?

[the bishop]

I think the farther apart eras get the harder it is to compare them.   Old Tom and his contemporaries played the technology of their day to its limits and IMO did as good as could be done with it.  But if you just looked at say the metric of scoring between that era and today's modern era one might think those were inferior players.  They were not.

[bscinstnct]

Sam Snead won his first pga tour event in 1936

 

He won his last in 1965

 

He had 3 top 10s including 2 top 5 finishes in the PGA Championship in 1972, 1973, 1974 (T3) 

 

Sam was in his 60s for those finishes. Imagine the equipment adaptations he made over the years , lol
 

So, it’s like I say about TW

 

If a 62 year old, Social Security eligible 🤣, Snead can do a T3 at the 1974 PGA Championship, finished right behind Jack (2nd) and Trevino (winner). 

 

Imagine what a 25 year old Sam Snead does out there today ; )

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by bscinstnct

[bladehunter]

Yea. I think the older I get in this game the more I think we have to just segregate the eras and let them shine on their own.  I don’t think comparing old Tom to Bruce K. Gets us anything.  
 

ive come to realize that the 90s are gone.  Sadly , Not to come back.  The 1890s have been gone a long time.  

[Ferguson]

 

1 hour ago, MattyO1984 said:

There was a thread a month or so ago where some posters almost seemed to ridicule these early winners because they were there when professional golf was in its infancy.

 

Here at WRX, we don't discriminate past from present.  We ridicule everyone and everything including broadcasters, a pilot that lands in a river when he clearly could have made it to an airport and people that drive their tee shots blindly into the group ahead of them.  This is the most well-balanced forum out there. 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Ferguson

[Shilgy]

I have certainly  been one that says the new guys are better. And they should be! A century of learning what works and what doesn’t at the highest levels of play. A century of improved nutrition and training. The latest technology to prove what works.  
  That does not denigrate the old guys in the least.  They were the very best of their era.  As far as we know.🤔 Which is one of my questions about the players of the past.  We do not really know if they were the best or just beat those that showed up. Worldwide travel was slow and tedious.  So the Open and US Open were largely local affairs rather than the world wide events they are today.  Two world wars certainly played a part in the astounding records compiled in the 20’s through the 50’s. 
  Funny isn’t it?  We can look at measured sports and absolutely know the new athletes are better. High school girls swim faster than Tarzan, aka Johnny Weissmuller the Olympic champion in 1924 and 1928.  Track records continue to fall.  
   But for some reason we are to believe that the old golfers were at least as good, if not better, than the current crop because they won more events.

  
  So yeah, celebrate their accomplishments but comparisons are futile. 

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I have certainly  been one that says the new guys are better. And they should be! A century of learning what works and what doesn’t at the highest levels of play. A century of improved nutrition and training. The latest technology to prove what works.  
  That does not denigrate the old guys in the least.  They were the very best of their era.  As far as we know.🤔 Which is one of my questions about the players of the past.  We do not really know if they were the best or just beat those that showed up. Worldwide travel was slow and tedious.  So the Open and US Open were largely local affairs rather than the world wide events they are today.  Two world wars certainly played a part in the astounding records compiled in the 20’s through the 50’s. 
  Funny isn’t it?  We can look at measured sports and absolutely know the new athletes are better. High school girls swim faster than Tarzan, aka Johnny Weissmuller the Olympic champion in 1924 and 1928.  Track records continue to fall.  
   But for some reason we are to believe that the old golfers were at least as good, if not better, than the current crop because they won more events.

  
  So yeah, celebrate their accomplishments but comparisons are futile. 

I’d agree with you if distanced snd equipment were same.  Like swimming. I know they gained s few clicks with suits etc.  but for the most part it’s like runners. It’s you and the pool , or you And the track.  Shoes didn’t make Bolt that much faster.  
 

 But in golf.  Clubs make more of a difference.  I’m inclined to guess with you and agree that today’s guy is better snd faster. Etc. but. We cannot in anyway prove that because equipment is that much different.  Just like tennis. We can’t really compare that sports stars either.  So i agree on a hunch. But cannot prove it at alll.  

[3whacker]

many golf fans only know and recognize the history of their favorite sport from the time they first started following it...for many golf fans that timeline started with TW, its difficult for many to relate to Nicklaus-Watson-Palmer-Player because they never really saw them play in their prime, their is limited video of their heroics, but there is probably a video of every tournament TW ever played and certainly of every major that he has won. Historians have a way of choosing for us what they want us to remember. You have to do your own work if you want to learn the entire story in context

[tiderider]

10 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

 

Here at WRX, we don't discriminate past from present.  We ridicule everyone and everything including broadcasters, a pilot that lands in a river when he clearly could have made it to an airport and people that drive their tee shots blindly into the group ahead of them.  This is the most well-balanced forum out there. 

 

[Christosterone]

History should be viewed as it is…in relative terms…

 

Nobody at West Point argued if MacArthur could’ve bested US Grant at Forts Henry and Donelson.

 

Or if Seal Team 6 with night vision rifles could’ve dislodged Stonewall Jackson at The battles of Manassas 1 and 2..

 

all were great in their time….but not necessarily comparable

 

and golf should be viewed as other “histories”…relativism is necessary in all assessments of events and persons over eons imho

 

-chris

Edited July 26, 2021 by Christosterone

[JeffreySpicoli]

Lesser minds force everything into ranks and categories. They crave clarity, even when it’s illusionary.

 

Greater minds accept the messy and murky reality of difference and incompatibility, even when it’s uncomfortable.

 

[Shilgy]

12 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I’d agree with you if distanced snd equipment were same.  Like swimming. I know they gained s few clicks with suits etc.  but for the most part it’s like runners. It’s you and the pool , or you And the track.  Shoes didn’t make Bolt that much faster.  
 

 But in golf.  Clubs make more of a difference.  I’m inclined to guess with you and agree that today’s guy is better snd faster. Etc. but. We cannot in anyway prove that because equipment is that much different.  Just like tennis. We can’t really compare that sports stars either.  So i agree on a hunch. But cannot prove it at alll.  

Yes clubs make a difference. So does modern agronomy.  Courses in the past did not spend weeks to ramp up the difficulty for a tour event or major. Grow the rough a bit for a major and ready to go. 
 

If I had to guess some players currently would have fared better in the past and some in the past may have fared better today.  Basing that mostly  on equipment and green speed changes.

 

It would be a sad thing if players in every sport were not better.  They learn from previous champions and improve on it.

[Soloman1]

 

[brutus27]

We shouldn’t think about any of your questions. Like you stated, it’s history.

[bscinstnct]

Moment of truth is the same. 
 

2 guys, same size, same great skills, just born 80 years apart.

 

 

 

[Shakespeare]

45 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Moment of truth is the same. 
 

2 guys, same size, same great skills, just born 80 years apart.

 

 

 

One with a wooden headed driver with feathers in the ball that could literally fly anywhere and one with a ball that goes straight and a club that is made of the same stuff as airplanes...tough to compare...but those swings are identical!!

[Uncle_Buck2]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I’d agree with you if distanced snd equipment were same.  Like swimming. I know they gained s few clicks with suits etc.  but for the most part it’s like runners. It’s you and the pool , or you And the track.  Shoes didn’t make Bolt that much faster.  
 

 But in golf.  Clubs make more of a difference.  I’m inclined to guess with you and agree that today’s guy is better snd faster. Etc. but. We cannot in anyway prove that because equipment is that much different.  Just like tennis. We can’t really compare that sports stars either.  So i agree on a hunch. But cannot prove it at alll.  

I second this. Not to mention course care technology. Manicured greens, consistent rough lengths, and tight fairways have dramatically changed performance and difficulty consistencies/inconsistencies. I can only imagine what a round of golf at St. Andrews in the 19th century was like...

[Ferguson]

Could the neoteric player could go back and play better than a primitive player coming forward? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TiScape]

2 hours ago, JeffreySpicoli said:

Lesser minds force everything into ranks and categories. They crave clarity, even when it’s illusionary.

 

Greater minds accept the messy and murky reality of difference and incompatibility, even when it’s uncomfortable.

 

So true. I’ve always found it interesting  that most people feel the need to put everything into a box and label it in order to feel comfortable. When in reality most things aren’t simply either black or white. 

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Shakespeare said:

One with a wooden headed driver with feathers in the ball that could literally fly anywhere and one with a ball that goes straight and a club that is made of the same stuff as airplanes...tough to compare...but those swings are identical!!

Hold on there.  Snead was playing with a wound rubber ball, balata cover, same as was played basically from 1905 to 1997.  Yes, there were refinements, but the best players played balata into the 1990's.

[TiScape]

Speaking of comparing players from different eras… Here’s a pic of the 1950s Lakers. We should talk about how they’d fare against the likes of LeBron and Giannis. I think #24 on the left could shut down Giannis! 😂 

Edited July 26, 2021 by TiScape

[gvogel]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Yea. I think the older I get in this game the more I think we have to just segregate the eras and let them shine on their own.  I don’t think comparing old Tom to Bruce K. Gets us anything.  
 

ive come to realize that the 90s are gone.  Sadly , Not to come back.  The 1890s have been gone a long time.  

I would agree with that.  I have read books about the Morris's, Harry Vardon, Hagen, Jones, Sarazen, Byron Nelson, Snead and Hogan.  Oh, and Palmer and Nicklaus and Watson, and I have watched all three of them play at one time or another.  I think that it is best to appreciate what each did in their own generation, which were all something special.

 

By the way, Bobby Jones accomplishments in the US Open and British Open from 1923 to 1930 may be deserving of something extra special.

[TiScape]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

Moment of truth is the same. 
 

2 guys, same size, same great skills, just born 80 years apart.

 

 

 

What do you think the SS difference is?

[Rocky Ball-boa]

2 hours ago, JeffreySpicoli said:

Lesser minds force everything into ranks and categories. They crave clarity, even when it’s illusionary.

 

Greater minds accept the messy and murky reality of difference and incompatibility, even when it’s uncomfortable.

 

Throwing mad shade at bibliothecography!

 

Show me on this doll where the librarian hit you.

[bscinstnct]

4 minutes ago, TiScape said:

What do you think the SS difference is?

 

Prolly 5mph

 

Sam being faster

 

🤣

[Shakespeare]

21 minutes ago, TiScape said:

What do you think the SS difference is?

Good question...steel shaft and wooden head vs graphite shaft and metal hollow head probably makes a difference...plus if you are taught to swing fast early in life because the ball goes fairly straight you probably have a big advantage over Sam...would like to know ss comparison with equal equipment. My guess if you were consider long in your era...you probably would be long today. Maybe.

[TiScape]

2 minutes ago, Shakespeare said:

would like to know ss comparison with equal equipment. 

Yes! And unfortunately we will never know. 

[JohnnyCashForever]

Obviously, the modern era started when Tiger switched to the Nike 3-piece ball in 2000.  /s...I think.

[Shakespeare]

1 minute ago, JohnnyCashForever said:

Obviously, the modern era started when Tiger switched to the Nike 3-piece ball in 2000.  /s...I think.

Yes..when the tour players started playing it...a little before that they were selling similar type balls  that avg joe played

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, TiScape said:

Speaking of comparing players from different eras… Here’s a pic of the 1950s Lakers. We should talk about how they’d fare against the likes of LeBron and Giannis. I think #24 on the left could shut down Giannis! 😂 

 

Lol, well that’s a completely different talent pool than current.

 

But, I’ll make this analogy.

 

Mickey Mantle is as good a ball player as anybody now or ever played. You could say there are guys as good and more guys as good now than then

 

But nobody is a better baseball player than him. 
 

I think this holds true in golf. Jack is as good as anybody now. Hogan too. So, was Hagen or Old Tom? Very possible. 
 

Look at Mantle. He don’t even lift, bro!!
 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by bscinstnct