Ballstriking - where does Trevino rank?

[golferdude54]

39 minutes ago, NevinW said:

I agree.  I watched my first golf tournament around age 10 (Tournament of Champions in Las Vegas) and I've seen pretty much all of them since then.  Trevino first.  Nicklaus right behind him.  Miller was unbelievable for a while.  Tiger right up there with those three but with a short game that was a whole magnitude better than any of them.    

You’re underestimating Trevino around the greens, Tiger was a much better putter but Trevino was an amazing chipper.

[NevinW]

22 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

You’re underestimating Trevino around the greens, Tiger was a much better putter but Trevino was an amazing chipper.

I'm not saying that Trevino didn't have a great short game, but Tiger's bordered on the supernatural.  

[gators78]

I would argue top 3, with Hogan and Norman. Tiger under the gun was superhuman and definitely top 10, but he sure seemed to hit a lot more foul balls than the all-time ball striking peer group.

 

I also would include Lietzke in the top 10, that dude literally never practiced and knew exactly where it was going. 

[Dan Drake]

Trevino is on the Mount Rushmore, to be certain.  Hogan is also on there.  Moe is a tough one because is seems unfair to compare him against guys who won a bunch of majors on the PGA tour, but the case can certainly be made.  Jack & Tiger can both make a case, although Tiger's driver accuracy left a bit to be desired compared to the rest of this group.  Nelson & Watson as well, although Nelson was pretty short if we really are trying to decide between the best of the best of the best (and you could say the same for Moe).  Does Snead get a mention?  

 

Tough question, but one that is fun to bandy around a bit.  FWIW, in my golf viewership lifetime, I've seen VJ, Duval, Calc, and Matsuyama all get on hot streaks where if they were inside of 220, it felt like they were going to hit it inside of 6' every time.  IIRC, VJ still holds the record for worst putting every by an event winner.  He just out-ballstruck everyone by such a large margin that even his balky putter couldn't keep him from winning.  I have to imagine that is something like watching Hogan for the last years of his career.  

 

OOOOHHHHH, just saw @gators78 question about Lietzke.  Great call out there, plenty long, plenty straight, didn't even have to practice.  Probably doesn't get the credit he deserves because he just didn't (seem to) care enough.  Only 3 top-5 finishes in majors although in 1987 he finished T17 or better in all 4 majors.  There's a guy who would have been viewed in a COMPLETELY different light if he had been able to sneak in, say, two major wins over his career.  

 

 

 

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Dan Drake said:

Trevino is on the Mount Rushmore, to be certain.  Hogan is also on there.

 

Whatever the opposite of recency bias is… that.

 

It'll be an unpopular take… but there are probably 30 guys who hit it as well as Trevino or Hogan these days. Out of necessity. Sheer numbers. Trevino was great compared to the guys against whom he played, but the players now are better at every level.

 

Nicklaus said it well:

 

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

 

And that's pre-Tiger. I've argued this kind of stuff for about 20 years, so aside from saying this and maybe a bit more, that's almost all I've got left on it.

 

Cheers!

[Dan Drake]

38 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Whatever the opposite of recency bias is… that.

 

It'll be an unpopular take… but there are probably 30 guys who hit it as well as Trevino or Hogan these days. Out of necessity. Sheer numbers. Trevino was great compared to the guys against whom he played, but the players now are better at every level.

 

Nicklaus said it well:

 

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

 

And that's pre-Tiger. I've argued this kind of stuff for about 20 years, so aside from saying this and maybe a bit more, that's almost all I've got left on it.

 

Cheers!

I completely agree with you.  I guess I should say that in every sports conversation like this I always compare the player/accomplishment to the time period.  That is why I would put Hogan & Trevino up on the imaginary "Golf All-Time Ball-striking Mount Rushmore" but can also honestly agree with you that there are a LARGE number of pros today who hit it as good or better than both of them.  

[indianagolf2]

10 hours ago, NevinW said:

I'm not saying that Trevino didn't have a great short game, but Tiger's bordered on the supernatural.  

Technology advances were not avail to Trevino etc 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, indianagolf2 said:

Technology advances were not avail to Trevino etc 

 

How much technological advancement do you think has come to the short game???

[Shilgy]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

How much technological advancement do you think has come to the short game???

Reverse advancement has happened imo.  The old balata you could make the ball sing and dance around the greens.  

 

5 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Whatever the opposite of recency bias is… that.

 

It'll be an unpopular take… but there are probably 30 guys who hit it as well as Trevino or Hogan these days. Out of necessity. Sheer numbers. Trevino was great compared to the guys against whom he played, but the players now are better at every level.

 

Nicklaus said it well:

 

“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”

 

And that's pre-Tiger. I've argued this kind of stuff for about 20 years, so aside from saying this and maybe a bit more, that's almost all I've got left on it.

 

Cheers!

Yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for years on this board. I posted in the Trevino thread in Tour Talk that it’s interesting how all of the legendary ballstrikers played before the shotlink era.  And only a few of the top winners were born in the last 70 years.
  All I ever get back is they were tough back then.

[stevopagolf]

He's top 5 funniest too!  When he was doing yard work at his house a lady pulls up and asked what he gets for yard work.  Lee, not to correct the lady's assumption he was the help, said the women hear lets me sleep with her!

 

Last week he said his swing speed wouldn't get a ticket in a school zone!

 

Great ball striker great humorist!

[Ghostwedge]

There may well be 30+ guys on the Tour who are as good as ball strikers as Trevino, Hogan, etc. 

But I don't see their names on any Major trophies lately.

[indianagolf2]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

 

How much technological advancement do you think has come to the short game???

Tons....balls, different grinds, much better clubs, short game instruction 

[iacas]

45 minutes ago, indianagolf2 said:

Tons....balls, different grinds, much better clubs, short game instruction 

Meh. Balls are arguably not as spinny now. Grinds are barely “technology” and instruction isn’t.

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Ghostwedge said:

There may well be 30+ guys on the Tour who are as good as ball strikers as Trevino, Hogan, etc. 

But I don't see their names on any Major trophies lately.

Brooks. Rahm. Tiger. JT. Etc.

[indianagolf2]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Meh. Balls are arguably not as spinny now. Grinds are barely “technology” and instruction isn’t.

Balls are tons better then 70s ....instruction tons better 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, indianagolf2 said:

Balls are tons better then 70s ....instruction tons better 

Instruction still isn’t an improvement in “technology.”

Edited June 2, 2023 by iacas

[NevinW]

Trackman, Flight scope, video and so forth certainly qualifies as technology.

 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, NevinW said:

Trackman, Flight scope, video and so forth certainly qualifies as technology.

 

The argument was never that NO technology has helped the short game, just that it's had less influence there than elsewhere. And at the end of the day, Tiger's short game was better than Lee Trevino's, while Tiger also pre-dates FlightScope/Trackman.

[RoyalTroon]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

And at the end of the day, Tiger's short game was better than Lee Trevino's...

 

From 100 in Trevino all day long, on the green Tiger, is where my money spends.

[Nels55]

By all accounts Lee Trevino was a great ball striker one of the best ever.  I think that number one all time was Joice Wethered followed closely by young Tom Morris.  

 

The biggest technological improvement for average tour pros today is launch monitor, video and force plate analysis combined with the equipment fitted by the data.  Hogan was intelligent enough and worked hard enough without those advantages to figure it all out on his own.  Not many golfers are that smart.  Possibly or probably no one else in the history of golf was on Hogan's level of golf intelligence.  The technology and coaching available today gives average dumb a**'s similar leverage to that which Hogan developed on his own.

[indianagolf2]

On 6/3/2023 at 6:19 PM, Nels55 said:

By all accounts Lee Trevino was a great ball striker one of the best ever.  I think that number one all time was Joice Wethered followed closely by young Tom Morris.  

 

The biggest technological improvement for average tour pros today is launch monitor, video and force plate analysis combined with the equipment fitted by the data.  Hogan was intelligent enough and worked hard enough without those advantages to figure it all out on his own.  Not many golfers are that smart.  Possibly or probably no one else in the history of golf was on Hogan's level of golf intelligence.  The technology and coaching available today gives average dumb a**'s similar leverage to that which Hogan developed on his own.

So so very true