Clearing my hips

[Dariusz J.]

Give todays guys a week to practice with the older equipment and it is no contest.

I doubt it very seriously.

Im sorry but how could you possibly say that an amateur could whoop up on any Tour pro today. Do you honestly believe that?? Im almost afraid of the answer.

Some amateurs whoop some pros all the time. Guys like Manassero, Ichikawa, both Mollinaris etc. were better as amateurs than many pros in many events, majors included. My guess is you idolize pros too much.

I answered your question as best I could. Don't act like I owe you because you came up with 5 names from a period of 30 years.

Yes, you owe me a simple answer that I asked you without this mumbo-jumbo.

You talk like everything in golf is a function of full-swing technique - instead of a mix of skills, shortgame, fitness, judgement, attitude, and maybe a mix of technique and luck thrown in. I'm certain that Hogan understood this perfectly - and I think it's ironic that you idolise him but miss the point so completely.

I do not miss anything. I am just interested in full swing only in my studies. Hogan was the best proof he could win the most important events with a mediocre short game and less than mediocre putting. Today it is impossible though because today's golf kills artistry and promotes whacking and winning by recivery shots and putting. Of course, great putting is also a big artistry, but not appealing so much at me, sorry.

OMG, I just read this. Its friggin hilarious that this is considered an indictment of the skill level of the modern player. Hey, lets play a handicapped event with antique equipment that we've never played with. Nobody but the truly desperate would consider this a serious test of skill. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!

Anybody who thinks todays players suck should sit on a 200 yard par 3 at any tour event and watch all day. 1 shot penalty bunker right, pin cut 4 paces off the front right fringe. You would see shots land pin high left 10-20 feet all day long. Ill never understand the modern player bashing. I can dig if you dont like the attitudes of todays NFL players or whatever, but doubting todays athletes skill level is just plain weird.

Well, I have heard not only once that pros would whoop amateurs' asses even with an umbrella because they're so good. Obviously they aren't.
They are better athletes, no doubt. But surely worse artists of the game than they colleagues from yesteryear.

His biokinetic theory is about repeatability,not creativity.

Yes, Sir. Exactly it is about repeatability and not creativity. A boring good golf without adventures in hazards and woods.

Of the 5 or 6 years they had stats on Trevino,his best ballstriking year was 1980 where he was third.Pretty good but he hit 72% fairways and 70% GIRs.Not much different to the best ballstrikers of today.
You could have sworn Trevino with his ballstriking legend that he would have incredible stats like 90% fairways and 90% GIRs.

Do you have Trevino's stats of his prime ? Or only from the 80-ies ?

Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

You're suggesting I idolize people?????? Whoa.

All those guys you named anyway were full time players parading around as amateurs just waiting to turn professional. Im starting to realize im arguing with someone who really doesnt know the game.

 

[ej20]

IDo you have Trevino's stats of his prime ? Or only from the 80-ies ?

Cheers

They didn't keep stats prior to 1980.Trevino was 40 in 1980 and he still won 6 PGA titles including a major after that so it's not like he suddenly fell off a cliff.Forty is still young in the game of golf.

Hogan was 41 when he had the best year of his career in 1953 winning three majors.

The fact is at least I have provided some statistical data,even if it didn't cover Trevino's entire career.You have nothing but opinion and hearsay.

 

[Kevin Shields]

They didn't keep stats prior to 1980.Trevino was 40 in 1980 and he still won 6 PGA titles including a major after that so it's not like he suddenly fell off a cliff.Forty is still young in the game of golf.

Hogan was 41 when he had the best year of his career in 1953 winning three majors.

The fact is at least I have provided some statistical data,even if it didn't cover Trevino's entire career.You have nothing but opinion and hearsay.

Which is the beauty of his arguments

 

[birly-shirly]

[...]Yes, you owe me a simple answer that I asked you without this mumbo-jumbo.

A simple answer? Complexity isn't the problem, what i said wasn't that complicated. The issue is you don't want to engage with my answer. In the same way as you don't want to engage with any argument that is backed up with stats. Or an argument that isn't rooted in hearsay and platitudes. Or that depends on "microscale" (read "real world") issues. Or that has anything to do with actual scoring.

I've said this often enough. You've perverted the Hogan mystique into something that the man himself would barely have recognised. The guy was a player. A tournament winner. He might have said that putts should not count as full strokes - but he was never so confused as to think that they actually did not.

I do not miss anything. I am just interested in full swing only in my studies. Hogan was the best proof he could win the most important events with a mediocre short game and less than mediocre putting. Today it is impossible though because today's golf kills artistry and promotes whacking and winning by recivery shots and putting. Of course, great putting is also a big artistry, but not appealing so much at me, sorry.

See above. "mediocre short game"? Aye right. Now you're just making shit up.

 

[wulsy]

Ach c'mon. Give the Dari boy a break.

All he's saying is that the artistry of by gone days is in his opinion more admirable than the power play of today. For sure those guys had crap equipment and HAD to have a more repeatable move to avoid mishits, which were punished more then than now. Don't see anything wrong with that opinion really, ONLY implying that modern day tour players are "hackers" in relation to the players in the past is obviously a massive exaggeration: in fact it is downright untrue.

Who was the more skilled boxer Ali or Klitschko? I think this is where Dari is coming from.

 

[footwedge]

Which is the beauty of his arguments

Which is also the beauty of your arguments, just opinions, as the comparison of players from different era's is a futile endeavour, but fun.

I'd rather watch a match between Kuchar and Rose than Hogan and Nelson anyday.... yeah right. Why would Faldo in his prime go visit Hogan and ask how to win the U.S. open? since his era is so much better and the players are so much better why ask an inferior player like Hogan for advice? Loved Hogan's response.

 

[Dariusz J.]

You're suggesting I idolize people?????? Whoa.
All those guys you named anyway were full time players parading around as amateurs just waiting to turn professional. Im starting to realize im arguing with someone who really doesnt know the game.

So did you want me to compare weekend amateurs with pros and awaiting me to say amateurs are better ? ROFL. That's really amusing.

They didn't keep stats prior to 1980.Trevino was 40 in 1980 and he still won 6 PGA titles including a major after that so it's not like he suddenly fell off a cliff.Forty is still young in the game of golf.
Hogan was 41 when he had the best year of his career in 1953 winning three majors.
The fact is at least I have provided some statistical data,even if it didn't cover Trevino's entire career.You have nothing but opinion and hearsay.

OK, so let me revert once more with this question to you that you did not answer - why, in your opinion, Trevino is being considered a better ballstriker than Nicklaus and why his name is in 1st league of all-time best ballstrikers ?

A simple answer? Complexity isn't the problem, what i said wasn't that complicated. The issue is you don't want to engage with my answer. In the same way as you don't want to engage with any argument that is backed up with stats. Or an argument that isn't rooted in hearsay and platitudes. Or that depends on "microscale" (read "real world") issues. Or that has anything to do with actual scoring.
I've said this often enough. You've perverted the Hogan mystique into something that the man himself would barely have recognised. The guy was a player. A tournament winner. He might have said that putts should not count as full strokes - but he was never so confused as to think that they actually did not.

I thought it is easy just to write a digit. I was wrong then.

All he's saying is that the artistry of by gone days is in his opinion more admirable than the power play of today. For sure those guys had crap equipment and HAD to have a more repeatable move to avoid mishits, which were punished more then than now.

Thanks and yes, you got my point. Imagine tennis players - better athletes now but turned the game to serve bombing. There is no place for true artists - why ? because courts are not suited to better athletes any more. Set the net higher and you'll see how many true artists emerge. Same in golf - grow a big thick rough that really punish incompetent and inconsistent pros - you'll see that we'll have another Hogan (with due proportions of course) for whom having 90% of FiR and GiR is quite standard.

Cheers

 

[natep]

Thought this was interesting......not really sure what to make of it.

 

[footwedge]

Thought this was interesting......not really sure what to make of it.

Score in relation to par has changed, due to equip. ball and clubs, course setup/conditions and some players are just damn good.

 

[Bonesy]

Can we get Dariusz his own forum?

 

[birly-shirly]

That won't do. He needs 3. One for the death of golf. Another for the death of tennis. And a third for the murder of statistics.

 

[footwedge]

Can we get Dariusz his own forum?

He has one.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Well, the problem is that only few here believe in a thing called common denominator in mechanics of greatest ballstrikers. I was ridiculed when I talked about sequentiality of the ground up; I was ridiculed before when claiming that 5L Hogan was hell of a better pattern than his PG one with much less of shaft lean - now everyone believes what I was preaching; I was ridiculed before whem I talked about perpendicularity of the shoulder girdle and the role of clavicles - now Mike Finney presents an article that says exactly the same thing; I can bet the issue of tush line and proper hip area motion will go a similar route if Brian allows this question to be asked at the Antisummit. Am I a prophet ? Nah, I only believe in this common denominator and its implications for having better consistency in a golf swing.
Instead arguing who desired to be labelled as a great ballstriker in old times many of you should ask yourself what they have in common.

Cheers

 

[wulsy]

Dariusz: What does the perpendicularity of the shoulder girdle mean in simple terms? And what, in simple terms again, is the role of clavicles? And why is this desirable, and who does and who does NOT adhere to this model?

 

[spmurph]

I can bet the issue of tush line and proper hip area motion will go a similar route if Brian allows this question to be asked at the Antisummit. Am I a prophet ? Nah, I only believe in this common denominator and its implications for having better consistency in a golf swing.

If you haven't already done so, you should submit a specific question for Brian to present to the panel.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz: What does the perpendicularity of the shoulder girdle mean in simple terms? And what, in simple terms again, is the role of clavicles? And why is this desirable, and who does and who does NOT adhere to this model?

I do not want to take the space here with answering questions not related to the hips, therefore, I give the link to the thread where I was able (for a certain time, at least) to present some of my concepts before - there is a lot about perpendicularity and clavicles here:
http://www.brianmanzella.com/golfing-discussions/13208-dariusz-j-swing-theories-thread.html

If you haven't already done so, you should submit a specific question for Brian to present to the panel.

The question is: does maintaining the tush line symbolizes biomechanically the optimal pelvis area motion ?

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

Dariusz, todays professionals are not incompetent. You sound silly when you make statements like that.

I think everyone in younger generations asks guys who are older how they did it...trying to learn. Hogan asked a lot of questions to other pros too.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz, todays professionals are not incompetent. You sound silly when you make statements like that.

I think everyone in younger generations asks guys who are older how they did it...trying to learn. Hogan asked a lot of questions to other pros too.

Well, maybe I am exaggerating it but in a good will, I can assure you. The point is that, except US Open (and not always as e.g. this year), they play nowadays in a very pampered conditions. It is usually enough to set a US Open course a bit harder and, suddenly, you can count subpar rounds on one hand fingers and there are a lot of bogeys and doubles despite practice rounds they play and despite today's pros excellent putting which is a common thing.
Yes, Jared, even Hogan needed mentors. Noone denies it. But what is the relevance of this point to the discussion ?

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

I was referencing the fellow who said Faldo asked Hogan how he did it and Hogan famously blew him off. Inferring that younger generations were so inferior they needed to ask the older generation how to get it done. As if that never happens...