Clubpaths, and Hogan vs. Tiger 2000

[mgranato]

True. However, are you able to confirm to us which of Hogan tales were untrue anecdotes ? I have not heard a single one that seemed impossible. The more it all happened not in Homer's times where all possible eye witnesses died centuries ago. I see no reason why e.g. Nicklaus would like to overglorify Hogan at Woods's expense. Being in his shoes, he should do exactly the opposite knowing that only the latter is still able to throw him out of the throne.

BTW, I know another type of syndrome - to overglorify contemporary athletes which is just typical for younger generation. This is what fans of such Woods's, Messis and Nadals, etc. do.

Cheers

Ahh, but there is a high definition record of exactly what they did and did not do. So it's easy to dismiss the hero worshippers with the modern athlete. Hogan, on the other hand, does not have such a "record on file". So it's not so easy to dismiss the hero worshippers. In fact, they are the ones relied on to write the records. But when a man really wants to believe something that he believes happened about the man he believes is beyond belief - the job is often too big for reality to handle.

 

[mgranato]

If Faldo was such a great ballstriker, then why did he hit it so short (probably the reason he's not on the senior tour right now)?

It's worth noting that Faldo won his majors at Augusta back when it was a short course, which meant that putting mattered a lot more. And he won on hard and fast British links, where even short hitters like 59 year old Tom Watson and 53 year old Greg Norman almost won.

Answering with a question: Why does a bigger stronger athlete like Kuchar only carry it 263?

 

[Jared Willerson]

@Dariusz - I understand your point of view and I think it is great that you have found a golfer and a golf swing to hang your hat on. I would however caution you not to let your fervor for one man and one swing diminish the accomplishments of others.

 

[Lifter]

Answering with a question: Why does a bigger stronger athlete like Kuchar only carry it 263?

That is actually a great question and I have no idea what the answer is. I'd love to read speculation here for why Kuchar doesn't hit it farther than he does.

Excellent parallel, though. You would expect both Faldo and Kuchar to be big hitters because they're such big guys. In reality, they both hit it like small guys: short and straight. And I gotta think you have to be consistently capable of hitting it both long and straight before you can be considered a great ballstriker.

 

[Jared Willerson]

Nick Price was another biggish guy that didn't hit it a long way.

Rumor has it that Faldo was a bomber in his younger days.

I think Kuchar could be long, but he is just a body control / eye / hand coordination type of athlete. Kuchar plays the PGA Tour version of old man golf. We all know people like this. They are short, straight and one putters...seemingly on purpose. They are capable of a lot more power but they love the feeling of control more I guess. This also reflects in their personalities. I would never confuse Bubba and Kuchar personality wise and I think that reflects in their golf.

 

[mgranato]

Nick Price was another biggish guy that didn't hit it a long way.

Rumor has it that Faldo was a bomber in his younger days.

I think Kuchar could be long, but he is just a body control / eye / hand coordination type of athlete. Kuchar plays the PGA Tour version of old man golf. We all know people like this. They are short, straight and one putters...seemingly on purpose. They are capable of a lot more power but they love the feeling of control more I guess. This also reflects in their personalities. I would never confuse Bubba and Kuchar personality wise and I think that reflects in their golf.

Kinda what I was thinking. With the physical tools they have, I have to believe it's a choice thing somewhere along the line.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Kuchar is 133rd in driving distance. Somebody like David Toms is 177th. I don't think Kuchar is long off the tee, but he's not exactly short off the tee either.

Kuchar is a golfer. He's an all-around player. Drives it well (55th in Advanced Total driving), putts it well (24th in putts gained), has a good short game (35th in Adjusted Short Game) and has a good long iron/hybrid game (46th in Danger Zone play).

Somebody like Rickie Fowler hits it long (26th in Distance), but doesn't quite have that all-around game (107th in Advanced Total Driving, 12th in Putts Gained, 133rd in Short Game, 5th in Danger Zone play). *Perhaps* Fowler's quest for power makes his driving streaky. *Perhaps* Fowler works on his putting and ballstriking more and ignores his short game.

I think that in today's golf, unless you are consistently top 10 in driving distance, it's tough to play that bomb-n-gouge golf to the extent that JB Holmes and Bubba Watson play it.





3JACK

 

[Lifter]

Nick Price was another biggish guy that didn't hit it a long way.

Rumor has it that Faldo was a bomber in his younger days.

I think Kuchar could be long, but he is just a body control / eye / hand coordination type of athlete. Kuchar plays the PGA Tour version of old man golf. We all know people like this. They are short, straight and one putters...seemingly on purpose. They are capable of a lot more power but they love the feeling of control more I guess. This also reflects in their personalities. I would never confuse Bubba and Kuchar personality wise and I think that reflects in their golf.

I don't find temperamental explanations to be very satisfying. Kuchar is well known for despairing at his glaring lack of distance a few years ago anyway. I'd like to see an analysis that breaks down the components of Kuchar and McIlroy's techniques and explains why McIlroy is pound-for-pound such a longer hitter than Kuchar. What components make the biggest difference?

 

[Jared Willerson]

Just because they despair over it does not mean they really can do anything about it. Deep down, I would bet Kuchar likes the control. I just don't think he is wired to go full tilt the way Rory and Bubba are.

 

[Jared Willerson]

Richie, I have an "adjusted driving distance" stat that I put together (you kind of inspired me) that puts Toms in the dead middle of the pack. If you look at his distance efficiency stats, it states that he averages 288 off the tee and puts him in the same league distance wise (using the same "stat") as guys whose club head speeds are 5 mph faster.

Toms and Mark Wilson in reality are as long as Stuart Appleby, Chris Couch and Carl Pettersen....using efficiency as the base line.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

I don't find temperamental explanations to be very satisfying. Kuchar is well known for despairing at his glaring lack of distance a few years ago anyway. I'd like to see an analysis that breaks down the components of Kuchar and McIlroy's techniques and explains why McIlroy is pound-for-pound such a longer hitter than Kuchar. What components make the biggest difference?

Some folks are big AND fast, some are big AND slow. Some are small AND slow, Some are small AND fast. Just like all sports, muscle fibers are different from individual to individual.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

For where this Tiger / Hogan debate is going i'm going to throw the other guy that gets better with age and if you want to use Dariusz definition of tee to green then i nominate Moe Norman.

 

[Richie3Jack]

That's efficiency, which is great for the golfer whose swing speed is such. I don't think Toms or Kuchar are going to make any large jumps in swing speed anytime soon. But from a complete distance perspective, particularly with the irons because you can't gain distance by hitting up on irons, Toms is one of the shortest on Tour.

The trend on Tour is that power helps with....putting.

Meaning that the trend is that the longer a golfer hits the ball, they typically can 'get away with' poor statistical putting.

My belief is that there are 2 reasons why:

1) They can reach par-5's in two shots more oftten

2). They are getting less attempts in the Danger Zone. Somebody like Bubba Watson will average about 14 shot attempts in the Danger Zone in a 4-round tournament whereas Brian Gay averages about 20 shots in the DZ in a 4-round tournament.

Yes, those 6 shots spread over 4-rounds make a sizeable difference.

Also, by looking at the stats I do believe there is another positive difference that hitting up with the driver makes....trajectory.

These days on the Tour courses, golfers who hit the ball high are more likely be fit into a course's design than the low ball hitters. On the Tour, particularly since so many courses are TPC layouts, the days of wanting to hit low bullets are long gone.






3JACK

 

[Jwat]

As per shots that supposedly Woods could hit - could he place his ball 4 days in a row on a very similar spot on a fairway (invisible from tee) with a driver (as Toski said today's guys would have problem to repeat it with a wedge) ? I am afraid he would not hit this fairway at all...ROFL.

Dariusz,

Don't you think modern equipment and golf courses change how we compare golfers? For example, would Hogan have been able to hit that same spot with the new golf ball spinning less and golf courses with faster/tighter fairways? To me its like comparing apples to oranges, but for you I guess it is co ma piernik do wiatraka?

I agree with alot of what you preach, but to say Tiger couldn't hit all the shots Hogan could is just not right. You are pretty much stating Hogan was more accurate which is true in some context. But when we compare differences in equipment, golf courses, and technology it is debatable.

Jerad

 

[Dariusz J.]

Ahh, but there is a high definition record of exactly what they did and did not do. So it's easy to dismiss the hero worshippers with the modern athlete. Hogan, on the other hand, does not have such a "record on file". So it's not so easy to dismiss the hero worshippers. In fact, they are the ones relied on to write the records. But when a man really wants to believe something that he believes happened about the man he believes is beyond belief - the job is often too big for reality to handle.

True, to some extent. But, as said before, we are not believing in fairy tales but in documentary opinions of witnesses, including golf legends.
Why to believe in Hogan's weaknesses and not believe in his strongest points ? It's the same "tale".

@Dariusz - I understand your point of view and I think it is great that you have found a golfer and a golf swing to hang your hat on. I would however caution you not to let your fervor for one man and one swing diminish the accomplishments of others.

I do not do it. In my researches, dedicated to the best and most accurate ballstrikers, there is a place for many greats. However, there is no place for ball whackers.

For where this Tiger / Hogan debate is going i'm going to throw the other guy that gets better with age and if you want to use Dariusz definition of tee to green then i nominate Moe Norman.

Agree 100%. Besides Moe, there is Knudson, Trevino, Mehlhorn etc. There are two things that make me treat Moe a bit differently than Hogan though.

Dariusz,

Don't you think modern equipment and golf courses change how we compare golfers? For example, would Hogan have been able to hit that same spot with the new golf ball spinning less and golf courses with faster/tighter fairways? To me its like comparing apples to oranges, but for you I guess it is co ma piernik do wiatraka?

I agree with alot of what you preach, but to say Tiger couldn't hit all the shots Hogan could is just not right. You are pretty much stating Hogan was more accurate which is true in some context. But when we compare differences in equipment, golf courses, and technology it is debatable.

Jerad

Yes. But OTOH we could revert it and say that today's equipment is much more forgiving than clubs in the 50-ies and courses more pampered. And I believe that Hogan would make everyone on today's tour ashamed with his repeatability and accuracy with the new equipment - especially such players as Woods. He probably would not win so often because ballstriking means much less today and putting much more but spectators would see a different league golf from tee to green.

Cheers

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Darius could you expand on what those two things are? I am genuinely curious.

Thank you

 

[ej20]

First off we need to establish Hogan's clubhead speed.If he was 10 mph+ slower than Tiger then of course you can't expect Tiger to be as accurate but he doesn't need to be because he would be at least 30 yards longer.Moe Norman was considered more accurate than Hogan but he was shorter.

I know Hogan fanatics are going to jump out of the woodwork here and declare that he was even longer than Woods which meant he was even longer than Nicklaus.They are going to have to prove it.Saying this old codger and that old codger said so is not proof.We know for a fact Tiger can swing it 128mph when he's healthy.

Hogan hit his 1 iron 210 yards.Tiger can fly his 2 iron 260 and land like a butterfly with sore feet.This was early in his career using muscle backs and balata balls.210 yards is an easy 5 for Tiger.He could probably jump on it and get another 20.

 

[Jwat]

Richie,

How would a modern day Hogan compare today stats wise and rankings if he:

1. Was shorter in distance but hit almost all the fairways
2. Was very accurate from the danger zone
3. Was a poor putter compared to today's tour standards.

Would you consider being poor in putts gained and not being super long off the tee directly reflect in today's performance?

 

[birly-shirly]

I do not do it. In my researches, dedicated to the best and most accurate ballstrikers, there is a place for many greats. However, there is no place for ball whackers.



Agree 100%. Besides Moe, there is Knudson, Trevino, Mehlhorn etc. There are two things that make me treat Moe a bit differently than Hogan though.



Yes. But OTOH we could revert it and say that today's equipment is much more forgiving than clubs in the 50-ies and courses more pampered. And I believe that Hogan would make everyone on today's tour ashamed with his repeatability and accuracy with the new equipment - especially such players as Woods. He probably would not win so often because ballstriking means much less today and putting much more but spectators would see a different league golf from tee to green.

Cheers

If you're serious that there's no place in your research for how Tiger hit the ball in 2000 (Nicklaus is missing too - another ballwhacker presumably) - then you should just declare as much in your signature and then no-one can complain that they didn't realise that you're really a golf historian (specialist subject - golf in black and white) rather than a serious theorist.

As for equipment, you're tilting at the wrong windmill on that one. As EJ says - Tiger was hitting irons that could have come right out of any bag in the last 40 years, a wound balata or just possibly one of the spinniest solid balls, and a short, steel-shafted driver with negligible spring off the face. Y2K Tiger had minimal help engineered into his bag and he was playing courses that were lengthened and slicked for the guys who took every trick offered.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Darius could you expand on what those two things are? I am genuinely curious.

Thank you

Jim,
According to my opinion, first one is that Moe Norman was sort of autistic person and his ability of zeroing out his "trackman" are comparable to, say, another autistic person who is gifted in math and can multiply given 4-digits numbers in a second in memory. I won't benefit from such a player in my studies aimed at finding at least partial automatism for a weekend hacker.
The second one is that Moe never dominated everyone in the world even in one or two points of time. He could be treated more as a trick shot artist like Joe Kirkwood (who BTW could supposedly hit all the shots and could make a hole-in-one on command within a relatively short period of time) than a winner.

First off we need to establish Hogan's clubhead speed.If he was 10 mph+ slower than Tiger then of course you can't expect Tiger to be as accurate but he doesn't need to be because he would be at least 30 yards longer.Moe Norman was considered more accurate than Hogan but he was shorter.
I know Hogan fanatics are going to jump out of the woodwork here and declare that he was even longer than Woods which meant he was even longer than Nicklaus.They are going to have to prove it.Saying this old codger and that old codger said so is not proof.We know for a fact Tiger can swing it 128mph when he's healthy.
Hogan hit his 1 iron 210 yards.Tiger can fly his 2 iron 260 and land like a butterfly with sore feet.This was early in his career using muscle backs and balata balls.210 yards is an easy 5 for Tiger.He could probably jump on it and get another 20.

First, Hogan's 1 iron had loft of Tiger's 3 iron. Second, courses and balls add much more distance than previously. I would never say Hogan was Thomson-, Nicklaus- or Snead-long and probably not Woods-long as well, but the difference wasn't big, I would bet. It is not a huge difference as between Holmes and Pavin for sure.
Moreover, Hogan would have also some reserves and there is a great story how he outdrove Palmer 40 yards just for show on command. If some is to be intimidated it would be Woods with Hogan's accuracy and control, not Hogan with Woods's length from the tee.

If you're serious that there's no place in your research for how Tiger hit the ball in 2000 (Nicklaus is missing too - another ballwhacker presumably) - then you should just declare as much in your signature and then no-one can complain that they didn't realise that you're really a golf historian (specialist subject - golf in black and white) rather than a serious theorist.

As for equipment, you're tilting at the wrong windmill on that one. As EJ says - Tiger was hitting irons that could have come right out of any bag in the last 40 years, a wound balata or just possibly one of the spinniest solid balls, and a short, steel-shafted driver with negligible spring off the face. Y2K Tiger had minimal help engineered into his bag and he was playing courses that were lengthened and slicked for the guys who took every trick offered.

Actually, I used young Nicklaus's swing in my studies. No, I did not use Woods in 2000, same as I did not use e.g. Miller in 1974. I am not interested in one-year fame. Ballstriking quality must be long in time because only this guarantees that it is really a result of perfect biokinetics of the motion (and not because of other factors). You are free to have your own opinion how serious theorist I am.
Secondly, I think you neglect the difference in equipment that was bigger than you think, IMO.

Cheers