Clearing my hips

[footwedge]

Yeah, apparently he hit it great, but that guy with the old "nobody hits it like that today" nonsense almost makes him sound insane.

Depends on the listner.

 

[footwedge]

While playing golf yesterday, I channeled both Nick-loss and Knudson. I hit really good shots as both. I was a little longer as Jack and I seemed to be a better short iron player as George. In both cases, as I was each player, I felt like I wished I could be Andy North.

That's crazy because I played yesterday and was channeling Andy North and wished I could hit it like George Knudson. But that's just insane, so I stopped doing it. Sometimes I channel Mandrin but I keep getting R. Grober weird?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Nicklaus was just being nice. Jack also said nice things about Gardner Dickinson: "watching Gardner hit short irons was something special". Is Gardner on your list of great ballstrikers?

My father also played a pro am round with Gay Brewer, 1967 Masters champion. I'd take Gay over Knudson easily. And Jack had nice things to say about Gay's game when he died. Look it up. Have you even heard of Brewer?

Yes, Dickinson was a great ballstriker. Brewster as well. Both swings are pleasant to my eye and have a lot of from great ballstrikers' common denominator.

Sure, George was a consistent ballstriker, but every shot was a draw and when I asked him how far he hit his driver he said 230. He was quite clearly not in the league of Weiskopf, Johnny Miller, Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Ray Floyd, or even Billy Casper.

Funny thing is that everyone who cares to know the history of golf and what other players said about competitors knows it was totally differently that you claim. read Footwedge's comments and links and what Natep said. You obviously misunderstand what a great ballstriking is.

I looked that up. Nicklaus said that Knudson had a "million dollar swing and a 10 cent putting stroke". I think Jack was trying to tell George to work on his putting.

ROFL. This is becoming ridiculous.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Yeah, apparently he hit it great, but that guy with the old "nobody hits it like that today" nonsense almost makes him sound insane.

Well, statistics exactly prove the guy was sort of right. Noone hits today so consistently like Moe, Hogan, Trevino or Knudson did.
Nickaus said clearily who was the best ballstriker, Woods wants to own the swing as Hogan and Moe did - but for some of you it is not important.

Cheers

 

[ej20]

Dariusz you don't have any stats to prove they hit it more consistent than the best players of today.They didn't have stats in those days so it's all just your opinion and the opinion of a few stubborn old farts.

What stats they do have of Trevino showed that Nicklaus was a better ballstriker.The PGA started keeping stats in 1980 and between 1980 and 1985 Nicklaus was the number one ballstriker for 4 of those years.Not one of those years did Trevino have better ballstriking stats that Nicklaus.Go to pgatour.com and check out the stats if you don't believe me.

Really you should stop this fanboying of Hogan,Moe,Knudson and Trevino because it makes you sound like a kook.

 

[footwedge]

Dariusz you don't have any stats to prove they hit it more consistent than the best players of today.They didn't have stats in those days so it's all just your opinion and the opinion of a few stubborn old farts.

What stats they do have of Trevino showed that Nicklaus was a better ballstriker.The PGA started keeping stats in 1980 and between 1980 and 1985 Nicklaus was the number one ballstriker for 4 of those years.Not one of those years did Trevino have better ballstriking stats that Nicklaus.Go to pgatour.com and check out the stats if you don't believe me.

Really you should stop this fanboying of Hogan,Moe,Knudson and Trevino because it makes you sound like a kook.

C'mon quit picking on Dariusz everybody has their favorite players, he's talking ballstriking, not ballstriking stats. Some of those opinions from old farts are from Nicklaus, who better to compare the guys now to then Hogan and Trevino and Nicklaus, oh and one day all the young guys on tour now will be old farts talking about their stats and accomplishments. You might be one of them if your lucky.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz you don't have any stats to prove they hit it more consistent than the best players of today.They didn't have stats in those days so it's all just your opinion and the opinion of a few stubborn old farts.

What stats they do have of Trevino showed that Nicklaus was a better ballstriker.The PGA started keeping stats in 1980 and between 1980 and 1985 Nicklaus was the number one ballstriker for 4 of those years.Not one of those years did Trevino have better ballstriking stats that Nicklaus.Go to pgatour.com and check out the stats if you don't believe me.

Really you should stop this fanboying of Hogan,Moe,Knudson and Trevino because it makes you sound like a kook.

I meant statistics of current players which are, delicately said, mediocre. Only guys like Durant or Furyk can be mentioned in the 2nd league of great ballstrikers.
I believe you that Nicklaus could have better stats one, two or even more seasons comparing to Trevino. Yet, Trevino is being stated the last true ballstriker since Hogan times and not Nicklaus. Explain me why, please.
Apropos Nicklaus - show me now as consistent and as long player as Nicklaus was amongst today's players. Nicklaus is also a player of yesteryear...

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - how about a new thread, called something like "Modern Golf is Rubbish", where this endless, pointless discussion can run without derailing countless legitimate threads. Isn't that why wrx ended up with a hogan sub-forum?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz - how about a new thread, called something like "Modern Golf is Rubbish", where this endless, pointless discussion can run without derailing countless legitimate threads. Isn't that why wrx ended up with a hogan sub-forum?

Well, maybe you're right to some extent. However, I wouldn't call discussion about great ballstrikers and common denominator of them (as maintaining the tush line certainly is) a rubbish. This thread would have died with an uncomplete info if not this discussion. One can clear the hips the way it is mechanically sound or not and I see no reason why we shouldn't continue the discussion. You can always treat this off-topic part as an introduction to the 2nd part of meritoric discussion.

As regards wrx - it ended up the way it did because of some anaonymous Hogan "experts" who were afraid to show their swings while claiming they know something about Hogan. Certainly not because discussions about the best ballstrikers - everyone agreed easily who was on the list of great ballstrikers and who tried to swing like Hogan. It also ended because of inability to speak gently, which I rank myself at the top of the participants. So also it was mea culpa which was sad because it was a great idea to have a Hogan subforum.

Cheers

 

[drewyallop]

What are the characteristics of a "great" ball striker? Distance, accuracy, consistency, sound, something else?

 

[Dariusz J.]

What are the characteristics of a "great" ball striker? Distance, accuracy, consistency, sound, something else?

Think like Nicklaus...why did he say that Hogan was easily the best ballstriker ? Distance - naaah, many were longer than Hogan, including Nicklaus. Accuracy - yes, but accuracy on command, if he wanted to hit a spot he hits it no matter conditions (vide '53 The Open and the 5th hole); consistency - yup, because in a not pampered times hitting rough from the tee meant 1 stroke in the ass and a probable bogey. Nicklaus knew what he said.
Things like sound are just complementary ones.

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

It's like saying Mac is a great ball striker over and over....eventually people will believe it although the stats on pgatour.com don't even come close to backing up that assertion.

Same with Knudson and Moe. I really don't think they could hang with the greats of the game ball striking wise. If they could history would prove it. Sadly it does not.

People want to talk about ball strikers from the past but don't want to include Johnny Miller? The guy hit it better than anyone. Seve? Also one of the best ball strikers of his era, started listening to folks and it ruined him. Knudson and Moe could not hang with either of them I suspect....prime or no.

Seve could no doubt have created a mythical legend about himself by going around and giving clinics and showing off how well he hit it....on a range doing trick shots, hitting it left handed blah blah blah. The ball strikers everyone mentions as being legends (Hogan excepted, and even that has reached some mythical proportions that to some, it is doubtful even God himself could not strike a golf ball as well as Hogan) are not nearly what people would have thought.

 

[Jared Willerson]

Think like Nicklaus...why did he say that Hogan was easily the best ballstriker ? Distance - naaah, many were longer than Hogan, including Nicklaus. Accuracy - yes, but accuracy on command, if he wanted to hit a spot he hits it no matter conditions (vide '53 The Open and the 5th hole); consistency - yup, because in a not pampered times hitting rough from the tee meant 1 stroke in the ass and a probable bogey. Nicklaus knew what he said.
Things like sound are just complementary ones.

Cheers

Your stretching it. I agree with Brian that a top tier player from todays era (say...Justin Rose) could go back in time to the 1959 Greensboro Open or some tournament like it and win by 10...using their equipment. I don't think you give enough credit to how much better technique wise these guys are, especially inside 100 yards.

 

[birly-shirly]

Well said re Seve, although I'd anticipate some flak for that. Expect some rigged argument that devalues creativity, length and trajectory and puts all the premium on repeatability. Guy was the longest driver on the tour in his prime, which earns him some slack when it comes to fairways missed. Also, I think that the quality of his shortgame kept him in contention somewhat past his prime - but also kept the spotlight on his fading long game when other players would have just faded from view.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Your stretching it. I agree with Brian that a top tier player from todays era (say...Justin Rose) could go back in time to the 1959 Greensboro Open or some tournament like it and win by 10...using their equipment. I don't think you give enough credit to how much better technique wise these guys are, especially inside 100 yards.

Really it is sad we cannot witness it. Maybe some of you can open your eyes and see players as Rose bogey first 5 holes or worse because of not hitting fairway and see Hogan win by 15 strokes over them despite 3 or 4 three-putts.
What technique ? If they cannot hit more than 50% of fairways or greens and save everything via recovery shots, chips and putts ? It's not golf any more, it's more like ReMax. Sadlowski's scores are great despite he can hit one straight driver out of six - imagine Titanic Thompson did not win anything special, despite he was Sadlowski of his era and prolly much better player overall.

I even do not know how one can dismiss Moe's or Knudson's ballstriking class even with an agenda.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

[...]and win by 10...using their equipment.

LOL. You should get to know how one VJ and one Ernie had a big ass-whooping in a foursome against amateurs with an old equipment. The longest drive of them (Els and Singh) both combined was under 200 yards. So much for today's "technique".

Cheers

 

[footwedge]

Your stretching it. I agree with Brian that a top tier player from todays era (say...Justin Rose) could go back in time to the 1959 Greensboro Open or some tournament like it and win by 10...using their equipment. I don't think you give enough credit to how much better technique wise these guys are, especially inside 100 yards.

Your stretching it and lot's of players from the past could come to an event using the new equip. and win by 10. There's no way Rose is a better player than a Snead, no way. Freakin' Walter Hagen would take all of Rose's lunch money everyday till Rose died of starvation.

 

[birly-shirly]

Really it is sad we cannot witness it. Maybe some of you can open your eyes and see players as Rose bogey first 5 holes or worse because of not hitting fairway and see Hogan win by 15 strokes over them despite 3 or 4 three-putts.
What technique ? If they cannot hit more than 50% of fairways or greens and save everything via recovery shots, chips and putts ? It's not golf any more, it's more like ReMax. Sadlowski's scores are great despite he can hit one straight driver out of six - imagine Titanic Thompson did not win anything special, despite he was Sadlowski of his era and prolly much better player overall.

I even do not know how one can dismiss Moe's or Knudson's ballstriking class even with an agenda.

Cheers

Get real Dariusz - what top player averages less than 50% GIR, or indeed fws? Figures like that take you off the tour. What I think you keep missing is that most people aren't dismissive of Moe, or Knudson or anyone from that era. They just don't think that golf stopped in the 1950s.

Come on man, it's disclosure time. Can you name 5 players that you like who turned pro within the last 30 years?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Your stretching it and lot's of players from the past could come to an event using the new equip. and win by 10. There's no way Rose is a better player than a Snead, no way. Freakin' Walter Hagen would take all of Rose's lunch money everyday till Rose died of starvation.

The best post ever on this board. LOL. So true.

Come on man, it's disclosure time. Can you name 5 players that you like who turned pro within the last 30 years?

Yes. Even more if you need me to. Furyk, Garcia, Quiros, Kuchar, Manassero.

Now it's disclosure time for you - how many strokes would Rose have lost to Hogan in 1953 with the equipment of 1953 and 1953 conditions ? Frankly and boldly -just answer.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

At Carnoustie - Hogan was a stroke per round better than a group that included an amateur, a young Peter Thomson who had yet to win in either Europe or the US, and a talented welshman who most people will probably not have heard of. I'm no fanboy for Rose, but I don't see any reason for thinking he wouldn't be a stronger candidate than that group. Do you think Jack Fleck was a better golfer than Rose, or indeed anyone in the current top 10?

Look, I take nothing away from anyone who beats the field. You could learn from that.