Clubpaths, and Hogan vs. Tiger 2000

[ej20]

I won't be trying to prove anything and you can think whatever you want.
And FYI I am not selling anything and nothing will fall into pieces. Lastly, I am not trying to sell Hogan as the best ballstriker ever. He was the best ballstriker ever if you like it or not because more knowledgeable people than you, me and anyone on here said so. Your private opinion here or your golfing preferences does not matter much, believe me.

Cheers

Well of course you wouldn't be trying to prove it because you can't and if you could,you might be dissapointed.

Man,you sound so childish and petulant."My old man said so...so there,I don't care what you think!!!!"

 

[duckjr78]

1. I think Hogan's swing repeated like almost no one else's. If we had our hypothetical Hogan's and Tiger's each hit 100 balls with 3 wood, 3 iron, 5 iron, 7 iron, and 9 iron, I think Hogan would beat Tiger in hitting it consistently closer to the pin.

2. But the worshipping of Hogan's consistent and repetitive swing seems to miss the point Kevin made, and that I would repeat: Tiger has hit NUMEROUS shots in his career that at that time he attempted them 99% of all those watching him try those shots would have said they were IMPOSSIBLE. Tiger has done things with a club that no one else even thought of.

Case in point: final round of the Masters this year, the shorter par 3 on the front. The pin was front left and you COULD NOT get below the hole. No one did it all day. Then Tiger came up to it hit this HUGE hooking 9 iron that started WAY right, came swooping back, landed within a 5 foot spot of a hump on the front right of the green and ran all the way down to 5 feet below the hole. He made birdie. No one else even THOUGHT of the shot, and Tiger pulled it off.

3. There have been a LOT of great swings. Snead, Nelson, Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson. It's not like Hogan is the only player in history who ever figured out how to stripe it. I like learning from Hogan's swing. But I also like learning from others. In terms of "great swings" there are a lot of models out there.

In terms of great players....well, I never saw Hogan play, but Tiger took the game of golf to a level I couldn't even imagine before watching him play.

I like this post, but I have one small point to make. We couldn't measure Hogan's 3wood, 3 iron, etc against Tiger's. The distance advantage would be gone. We would have to measure each player's accuracy from a specific distance. The fact that Tiger would be at least a club longer (with the same equipment) on the shorter irons and more on the longer clubs is very much a part of this debate.

Hogan hit a 210 yard 19°ish iron to 40 feet on the final hole of a major championship to get a par and win by one. With today's clubs & balls, maybe he hits something in the 24° range. Tiger probably would be hitting a 5 or 6 iron, something in the 27-30° range. Is there evidence that Tiger could hit a green from 200+ on the last hole of a major to assure a par and win? I know there is evidence from multiple regular tournaments and if there isn't one from a major, it could be because he won so many by so many shots.

Could 2000 Tiger stand there next to 1953 Hogan and put a 6 iron inside of Hogan's ball from the same distance? I happen to believe so.

 

[mgranato]

Is there evidence that Tiger could hit a green from 200+ on the last hole of a major to assure a par and win?

Not if he was trailing.

 

[Richie3Jack]

higher?

Higher and more towards the toe. Club designers may not have the golfer's swing in their minds when they are designing clubs...but they are not dummies when it comes to making mis-hits more forgiving. They understood that the common miss with the driver was high and off the toe...so they put the sweetspot there.

I hope to get on Trackman again soon. I obviously want to use it for my own practice, but I would like to see what exactly the numbers do with persimmon vs. titanium. Im sure if you hit up on persimmon, spin goes down. But how much? What's the exact tradeoff?

In general, I believe the greats of yesteryear had better swings than the greats of today and I think it's because they had to...the equipment forced them to.

Not to say that somebody like Tiger could not have played in that era. But I do believe he would gravitate to a swing more similar to the greats of yesteryear. And Hogan may have started swinging more like the modern player if he was using titanium and big cavity back irons.





3JACK

 

[DCgolf]

Dariusz J.,

The concept of swinging a club head with your hands is certainly not new.

This doesn't mean that Ernest Jones left out a bunch. Or any number of other folks.

Jim Flick of all people, said the body will respond to the "swing." He got 200 other things wrong, just like everyone.

Bob Toski KNOWS, but it never comes out exactly right.

The body doesn't need much attention, and that 25% power boost just isn't big of a deal if you can't "line it up."

BTW, YOU ARE CORRECT, POST WRECK HOGAN WAS BETTER.

Actually the "secret" if there was one, seems to have been discovered before the accident. He won 11 events in 1948 including the Open and PGA. The accident was February 1949. Post accident Hogan was just a continuation of his play but better in the majors. Of course he played a very limited tour schedule after the accident...

 

[birly-shirly]

Nothing very important would happen. Hogan would have had 3 majors less but his reputation of greatest ballstriker would not suffer much since everyone would have had other several years of ballstriking display. Do not forget that much more important for everyone (including Hogan) was one single Merion just after his accident.
As regards Woods's year 2000, it would be not fair to say that his biokinetics was not a factor here and there; however, the truth is that his ballstriking potential was not on the same level each year and while Hogan's improved with age, Tiger's deteriorates. It is not any mystery to see that Woods's motion is heavily timing dependent, unfortunately - opposite to post-secret Hogan's.

Well - I disagree. IMOP Hogan's reputation as a ballstriker is built upon his reputation as a winning competitive golfer. By 1953 his was the most impressive record in pro majors, bar Hagen, and second to none in the US Open. I think it does Hogan a disservice to drool over his shotmaking in isolation from his tournament record. From what I've read, he'd have been very much a "winning ugly" rather than a "losing pretty" kind of guy.

But take 1953 away (since you think 2000 was a "blip" for Tiger) and you still have an amazing recovery from crash injuries which is maybe enough to found a legend - but you're not talking about golfing immortality any more than for Faldo, Trevino, Snead or Nelson.

It's a fact of life that ballstriking prowess doesn't really register with the public unless it's accompanied by tournament victories. Take away the majors, and the Hogan Mystique would evaporate.

As for Tiger's deterioration post-2000 - well it's not clear that it had anything to do with his mechanics not being repeatable. He fell out with Butch, quite possibly over something personal, and went his own way. He got away from his 2000 mechanics, not the other way round.

Lastly, it is no odd that Hogan preferred 1948-49 (pre-accident years) and was saying later that he swung like a cripple after despite he won most important tournaments. The principles of the motion were the same though (after 1947).

Cheers

You like the Power Golf swing as much as later Hogan then - maybe even more?

Secondly, I think you neglect the difference in equipment that was bigger than you think, IMO.

Cheers

Maybe you could say what you think the differences in equipment are. I think the differences in playability of Hogan's and Woods' irons would be negligible. Same basic design - and actually I don't think lofts would vary much either. Wood Bros (the persimmon guys) tested their wooden head against a 975D and found no difference in distance. I'm not convinced that the forgiveness of a titanium head adds a huge amount to a pro who already hits the ball out of the middle. You can argue grooves - but I understand that Tiger never exploited u-grooves to the max as he would get too much spin. The biggest difference in equipment has to be the ball. Again, Woods has never fully exploited the low spin potential of solid core balls for distance - routinely he's been poorly or bottom ranked on tour for the efficiency of his launch conditions.

 

[birly-shirly]

Higher and more towards the toe. Club designers may not have the golfer's swing in their minds when they are designing clubs...but they are not dummies when it comes to making mis-hits more forgiving. They understood that the common miss with the driver was high and off the toe...so they put the sweetspot there.

I hope to get on Trackman again soon. I obviously want to use it for my own practice, but I would like to see what exactly the numbers do with persimmon vs. titanium. Im sure if you hit up on persimmon, spin goes down. But how much? What's the exact tradeoff?

Richie - do you mean higher and towards the toe relative to the centre of the face, or relative to the shaft? I ask because for a long time (I don't know about most recent models) Titleist for one made a big deal of a heelward weight bias in their drivers.

I'd like to hear the results of your trials on TM. I thought I read in a TM newsletter that changes in AoA tended not to change spin loft. I also remember Brian posting that his preference was to teach an upward angle of attack with the driver and an altered release to reduce spin loft - but those are 2 separate things. For the moment, I'm sticking with my belief that hitting up with the driver doesn't reduce spin unless you separately find a way to reduce spin loft. Of course, hitting up with the driver allows you to reduce spin loft - either with changed mechanics or a different driver set up.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I did and it didn't make sense.The reason he didn't win more against the best players was he was a bit awkward,wasn't accepted on the PGA tour and he went back to Canada.Doesn't prove he wasn't a better "biokinetic" model than Hogan.

Well, it does make sense for me, the more, you have shallowed the topic now. I have already explained here in one of earlier thread why shoulder joints alone are too weak a connection to the main body to ensure correct maximal repeatability as well as mentioned it here in this thread - but you obviously did not pay attention to it.

Well of course you wouldn't be trying to prove it because you can't and if you could,you might be dissapointed.

Man,you sound so childish and petulant."My old man said so...so there,I don't care what you think!!!!"

Listen, mate. I have better things to do that to prove my points to a person who set himself with a negative attitude and uses every opportunity to attack or humilate me. It is widely acknowledged that Hogan was the best ballstriker that ever lived and your doubts will not change it. Accept it, will be easier for you.

Could 2000 Tiger stand there next to 1953 Hogan and put a 6 iron inside of Hogan's ball from the same distance? I happen to believe so.

Yes, but he would have needed to hit fairway first. In case he missed it and be in that time rough he would have lost one stroke (at least) before reaching green.

Actually the "secret" if there was one, seems to have been discovered before the accident. He won 11 events in 1948 including the Open and PGA. The accident was February 1949. Post accident Hogan was just a continuation of his play but better in the majors. Of course he played a very limited tour schedule after the accident...

Exactly.

Well - I disagree. IMOP Hogan's reputation as a ballstriker is built upon his reputation as a winning competitive golfer. By 1953 his was the most impressive record in pro majors, bar Hagen, and second to none in the US Open. I think it does Hogan a disservice to drool over his shotmaking in isolation from his tournament record. From what I've read, he'd have been very much a "winning ugly" rather than a "losing pretty" kind of guy.
But take 1953 away (since you think 2000 was a "blip" for Tiger) and you still have an amazing recovery from crash injuries which is maybe enough to found a legend - but you're not talking about golfing immortality any more than for Faldo, Trevino, Snead or Nelson.
It's a fact of life that ballstriking prowess doesn't really register with the public unless it's accompanied by tournament victories. Take away the majors, and the Hogan Mystique would evaporate.

Evaporate ? Not at all. It would be still much bigger than Moe's who did not win any major and is considered as equal to Hogan. Ironically, it was Woods who said that these two owned their swings and he would like to be the same as them.

As for Tiger's deterioration post-2000 - well it's not clear that it had anything to do with his mechanics not being repeatable. He fell out with Butch, quite possibly over something personal, and went his own way. He got away from his 2000 mechanics, not the other way round..

Aha, the ifs begin. The cold truth is that Woods never could maintain a reputation of a great ballstriker. Personal issues ? Butch ? Laughable comparing to what Hogan went through with the accident.

You like the Power Golf swing as much as later Hogan then - maybe even more?

Never ever. Power Golf swing was biokinetically much worse. I think you mistake PG swing with post-secret pre-accident one.

Maybe you could say what you think the differences in equipment are. I think the differences in playability of Hogan's and Woods' irons would be negligible. Same basic design - and actually I don't think lofts would vary much either. Wood Bros (the persimmon guys) tested their wooden head against a 975D and found no difference in distance. I'm not convinced that the forgiveness of a titanium head adds a huge amount to a pro who already hits the ball out of the middle. You can argue grooves - but I understand that Tiger never exploited u-grooves to the max as he would get too much spin. The biggest difference in equipment has to be the ball. Again, Woods has never fully exploited the low spin potential of solid core balls for distance - routinely he's been poorly or bottom ranked on tour for the efficiency of his launch conditions.

Whatever the differences are they will be visible, IMO. Let's agree to disagree.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Evaporate ? Not at all. It would be still much bigger than Moe's who did not win any major and is considered as equal to Hogan.

Really? I don't think they can even be compared since Moe never had to perform down the stretch in a major. An artist with club in hand? Sure. But there's no comparison when it comes to tournament golf - which is surely what counts.

Aha, the ifs begin. The cold truth is that Woods never could maintain a reputation of a great ballstriker. Personal issues ? Butch ? Laughable comparing to what Hogan went through with the accident.

Here's the thing. I'm a big Hogan fan. So are lots of the people that you're constantly arguing this point with. You obviously despise Woods. That's your prerogative - but you can hardly pretend to be objective. Did I compare Tiger's separation from Butch with Hogan's car crash? Nope. I'm just saying that you can't draw too many conclusions about Tiger's mechanics in 2000 from what happened to him as a golfer once he changed coaches. It's not a difficult point - but you can't see it for the fog of loathing for the modern era that you seem to inhabit.

Never ever. Power Golf swing was biokinetically much worse. I think you mistake PG swing with post-secret pre-accident one.

What dates are you working to? Power Golf was written late '47 or early '48. I've always worked on the assumption that Power Golf must be post-secret, since pre-secret Hogan would never have got a book published.

Whatever the differences are they will be visible, IMO. Let's agree to disagree.

Cheers

Happy to disagree - but it would still be nice if you would state what you think the differences are. I've made my case on where I think the similarities lie. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that a return to persimmon and blades would (pre-crash at any rate) have played right into Tiger's hands.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Really? I don't think they can even be compared since Moe never had to perform down the stretch in a major. An artist with club in hand? Sure. But there's no comparison when it comes to tournament golf - which is surely what counts.

Ballstriking-wise Moe is on the highest possible pedestal, equal to Hogan. Higher than Knudson, Trevino, Mehlhorn, Boros, DeVicenzo, Wright, etc.
Another thing is how he achieved it (a bit differently, IMO, hence my comparison to autism) and if he could use it to dominate around the world or not. I have already explained this issue. FYI, to many people Moe is a better ballstriker even than Hogan was. You can see shades of it even in this very thread.

Here's the thing. I'm a big Hogan fan. So are lots of the people that you're constantly arguing this point with. You obviously despise Woods. That's your prerogative - but you can hardly pretend to be objective. Did I compare Tiger's separation from Butch with Hogan's car crash? Nope. I'm just saying that you can't draw too many conclusions about Tiger's mechanics in 2000 from what happened to him as a golfer once he changed coaches. It's not a difficult point - but you can't see it for the fog of loathing for the modern era that you seem to inhabit.

No, actually you're only the 2nd person who would like to portrait yourself as a Hogan fan while talking things that no true Hogan fan would. I never ever even asked or suspected that you're a Hogan fan LOL.
And I was objective - what problems must they be to make a TRUE great ballstriker deteriorate if Hogan wasn't influenced by a horrible crash ? Think this way and stop finding a double bottom where there isn't any.

What dates are you working to? Power Golf was written late '47 or early '48. I've always worked on the assumption that Power Golf must be post-secret, since pre-secret Hogan would never have got a book published.

PG was written in 1946 and published a year later. It does not contain any info of the "secret". The real "post-secret" book was 5L.

Happy to disagree - but it would still be nice if you would state what you think the differences are. I've made my case on where I think the similarities lie. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that a return to persimmon and blades would (pre-crash at any rate) have played right into Tiger's hands.

Less forgiving heads with SS close to hosel; less friendly shafts; much worse ball; much worse COR of wooden heads, etc. The difference should be somehow significant if e.g. the famous fact is that Hogan went to England several days earlier just to accomodate to a slightly smaller ball ONLY.

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

Power Golf was written post secret. I have a copy I am looking at right now.

 

[Brian Manzella]

This is the only point I am going to make in this thread:

I think if you went an got a Jason Day on a good week, for example, and put him in a time machine, and went back to the late 50's to the old New Orleans Open at City Park, and gave Jason a week to practice with the old equipment, he'd win by 10.

 

[conkanen]

1. I think Hogan's swing repeated like almost no one else's. If we had our hypothetical Hogan's and Tiger's each hit 100 balls with 3 wood, 3 iron, 5 iron, 7 iron, and 9 iron, I think Hogan would beat Tiger in hitting it consistently closer to the pin.

2. But the worshipping of Hogan's consistent and repetitive swing seems to miss the point Kevin made, and that I would repeat: Tiger has hit NUMEROUS shots in his career that at that time he attempted them 99% of all those watching him try those shots would have said they were IMPOSSIBLE. Tiger has done things with a club that no one else even thought of.

Case in point: final round of the Masters this year, the shorter par 3 on the front. The pin was front left and you COULD NOT get below the hole. No one did it all day. Then Tiger came up to it hit this HUGE hooking 9 iron that started WAY right, came swooping back, landed within a 5 foot spot of a hump on the front right of the green and ran all the way down to 5 feet below the hole. He made birdie. No one else even THOUGHT of the shot, and Tiger pulled it off.

3. There have been a LOT of great swings. Snead, Nelson, Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson. It's not like Hogan is the only player in history who ever figured out how to stripe it. I like learning from Hogan's swing. But I also like learning from others. In terms of "great swings" there are a lot of models out there.

In terms of great players....well, I never saw Hogan play, but Tiger took the game of golf to a level I couldn't even imagine before watching him play.

If we can take a break in the "Tiger Worship" for a second...do we honestly believe Tiger can hit all the shots that Bubba Watson hits? Think about that objectively for 1 second.

 

[birly-shirly]

Ballstriking-wise Moe is on the highest possible pedestal, equal to Hogan. Higher than Knudson, Trevino, Mehlhorn, Boros, DeVicenzo, Wright, etc.

So your definition of optimal has nothing to do with performance under pressure then.

No, actually you're only the 2nd person who would like to portrait yourself as a Hogan fan while talking things that no true Hogan fan would. I never ever even asked or suspected that you're a Hogan fan LOL.
And I was objective - what problems must they be to make a TRUE great ballstriker deteriorate if Hogan wasn't influenced by a horrible crash ? Think this way and stop finding a double bottom where there isn't any.

Fine. I don't think I need your validation as a "true Hogan fan". But anyone who sets themselves up as the arbiter of who is a true fan and who's not looks ridiculous. In my opinion.

PG was written in 1946 and published a year later.

You're sure? Because my copy of PG mentions events in 1947.

Less forgiving heads with SS close to hosel; less friendly shafts; much worse ball; much worse COR of wooden heads, etc.

Cheers

I already gave you the ball point. What do you mean by "forgiving" heads? A CoG near the hosel increases the risk of a hacker hitting a shank. How is it any less forgiving for a decent player? Steel shafts have hardly changed in the time. Much worse COR simply isn't true - I already explained that this was tested.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

This is the only point I am going to make in this thread:

I think if you went an got a Jason Day on a good week, for example, and put him in a time machine, and went back to the late 50's to the old New Orleans Open at City Park, and gave Jason a week to practice with the old equipment, he'd win by 10.

WORD!

 

[Dariusz J.]

Power Golf was written post secret. I have a copy I am looking at right now.

Yep, my mistake. It was written in 1947 and published in 1948. However, I still claim it does not concern the "secret" since Hogan's PG swings are vastly different than both his post-secret pre- and post-accident motions (that are very close to each other).

This is the only point I am going to make in this thread:

I think if you went an got a Jason Day on a good week, for example, and put him in a time machine, and went back to the late 50's to the old New Orleans Open at City Park, and gave Jason a week to practice with the old equipment, he'd win by 10.

What is the characteristic of the City Park course and why have you mentioned this particular one ? Would you say the same about the layout of e.g. Oakmont in 1953 ? Just curious.

So your definition of optimal has nothing to do with performance under pressure then.

Read my post #100.

You're sure? Because my copy of PG mentions events in 1947.

Mea culpa - vide my response to Jared.

I already gave you the ball point. What do you mean by "forgiving" heads? A CoG near the hosel increases the risk of a hacker hitting a shank. How is it any less forgiving for a decent player? Steel shafts have hardly changed in the time. Much worse COR simply isn't true - I already explained that this was tested.

OK, fair enough. I remember in my clubfitting times though that the COR of persimmon was around 0.70 which is much less than max. allowed 0.83. I am not so sure if steel shafts have hardly changed. But I won't be arguing further since I am not an expert in this field.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Yep, my mistake. It was written in 1947 and published in 1948. However, I still claim it does not concern the "secret" since Hogan's PG swings are vastly different than both his post-secret pre- and post-accident motions (that are very close to each other).

Not arguing here that the PG swings don't look different to those from the 50s, but are you saying then that Power Golf was written in '47/'48 and illustrated with photos or swings that were "pre-secret" and therefore maybe 2 years old?

 

[footwedge]

If we can take a break in the "Tiger Worship" for a second...do we honestly believe Tiger can hit all the shots that Bubba Watson hits? Think about that objectively for 1 second.

Why couldn't he? I think he already has. Youtube has lots of Tigers amazing shots and we all have seen them on the telly. Bubba works the ball a lot it's his style. Other players don't but it doesn't mean they can't.

 

[footwedge]

Quote: Dariusz "What is the characteristic of the City Park course and why have you mentioned this particular one ? Would you say the same about the layout of e.g. Oakmont in 1953 ? Just curious."


Dariusz, I think the point was more about the equipment than the course. Let a tour player practice with the older equipment for awhile and it becomes a moot point, why? because these guys are good.

 

[ej20]

Dariusz,if you could prove anything you claim you would do it in a heartbeat just to rub it in my face but you can't or won't and we know the reason why.You are too deep into the "biokinetics" of Hogan to ever take a backward step.Brian can move on when he discovers new things by keeping an open mind.Too bad you can't.

I am the biggest fan of Hogan and he just could be the most controlled striker of the ball ever.But you are not going to convince me or anyone with some intelligence that if you copy Hogans biomechanics,you will have automation in your swing.You have not provided one shred of evidence that this is the case so why should anyone believe you.

Oh and I am not ridiculing you.Perhaps you are just too sensitive or lack a sense of humour.I have on numerous occasions agreed on things you have said.I give credit where credit is due according to my opinion.