Explanations

[Dariusz J.]

Gents,

Since another thread with my participation and discussion about ballstriking/Hogan has been locked again, I would like to say a few things:

1. I do not know why it is so hard to understand that argumentation is valid when supported by facts;

2. I do not know why some people on this forum wants to make a fool of myself. Take this example:

Fronesis wrote and the thread had been locked before I had a chance to respond.

am posting in this thread for one reason only: to deny this claim. I (and perhaps others) have been avoiding this thread not because I think Dariusz is right, but because the usually very high level of discussion is lost whenever Dariusz makes Hogan into a religion.

Also, claiming that anyone not speaking must agree with you – that is a cheap rhetorical move that is logically untenable. So please Dariusz, while you are insulting the folks who are still here to talk with you, please don't drag in those who aren't here and claim they are on "your" side. If you are going to accuse others of having no arguments (and no IQ) you may want to work on how you formulate yours. What you say above wouldnt get you a C in Logic 101.

Where the hell I said that EVERYONE REMAINING SILENT IS ON MY PART ? I said "You might think I am the loudest only because I am surrounded by opponents with NO VALID ARGUMENTS, while those who think similarily prefer to remain silent." What you just did is the cheap vicious trick aimed at making me look like an idiot. I hate such and no odd my reaction would be strong.


Or another case -- when there was no escape from saying I was right that Nicklaus (being asked about Woods) answered with famous "no, no --easily Hogan", instead admitting I was right, another opponent in the discussion changes the track to claim that Nicklaus always is a false flatterer, but he knows what he really thought.


How to discuss in such reality on this forum ?

Next -- I am turning Hogan into religion -- is believing in what people (including greats) eye-witnessed and described in books or fora making a religion (out of facts) ? Find me at least one example when I am making my own stories in order to make Hogan better than he was in reality. I am only using arguments based on facts. Why should I back from the discussion if I read untrue things that contradict what knowledgeable people said about Hogan ?


Lastly, I seem to be one of a very few people who can admit that one was wrong. The vast majority prefers to run away in silence thinking that this kind of childish behaviour will make them the winner in a meritoric discussion. Examples -- in each similar locked threads, incuding the latest one. And as regards insulting -- look closely who starts to insult first in a camouflaged way. I command a simple English and saying what I think. That's all.


This is how everything looks from my perspective. I promised to myself today that I won't ever start any more debates (aha, to be totally frank -- not all of the debates was started by myself ! sometimes I just had to respond to a silly claim about Hogan) about Hogan or ballstriking art unprovoked if only I receive a reasonable answer(s) to the content of this post of myself.


Cheers

P.S. Please delete the thread when it runs its course. I guess it's better to exlain everything here in one thread than to pollute other threads with threadjacks.

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz

I'm a big Hogan fan. But the "facts" that you rely on for your arguments are the sorts of anecdotes and mystique that I first came across in the 80s. Since then, I've read pretty much everything I can about Hogan, and I'm bound to say that the better researched stuff paints a much more subtle picture than the mythical ballstriking machine who haunts modern golf forums. I'm not saying that the quotes that you repeatedly wheel out aren't valid - but treating them as the whole story and the last word on the subject isn't very convincing to me.

Second, I think the understanding of what drives human performance is much better now. It takes nothing away from any golfer who has been dominant in their era to say that knowledge progresses and standards rise - but you are very unwilling to concede that point. In every walk of life, there are people who stubbornly insist that things were much better back in the day. And that was surely the case back in the 50s too. When nostalgia seems hard-wired into the human condition, I think it's reasonable to be sceptical about your arguments in the absence of hard, supporting stats. Obviously, we have Hogan's playing record if not his performance stats, and he was undoubtedly a hell of a player.

I very much doubt whether your enthusiasm for Hogan would cause quite so many arguments if you weren't so bloody disparaging about modern players. I don't think it's too strong to say that you seem to hate modern golf, and most modern successful golfers. In my opinion, if you had a bit more respect for modern golfers and the game that they play, then you would carry a lot more credibility.

Lastly, you say that you're in the rare minority that will admit their mistakes. It doesn't appear to me that you've changed, moderated or developed your views about Hogan in the years that I've seen you posting. That's all well and good - you're entitled to your opinion. But what's the point of swamping a discussion board if you're not interested in discussion. You have someone like Nitro who says that he has first hand knowledge of a number of the players that you cited as ballstriking paragons - and you treat the guy like a hostile witness and insult his intelligence. I'm not interested in who threw the first stone - I'm just saying that you don't act like someone who actually wants to discuss the subject or learn anything new.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Birly,

Points taken, and perhaps there is truth in them, but you seem to be unfair in your opinion.

Dariusz

I'm a big Hogan fan. But the "facts" that you rely on for your arguments are the sorts of anecdotes and mystique that I first came across in the 80s. Since then, I've read pretty much everything I can about Hogan, and I'm bound to say that the better researched stuff paints a much more subtle picture than the mythical ballstriking machine who haunts modern golf forums. I'm not saying that the quotes that you repeatedly wheel out aren't valid - but treating them as the whole story and the last word on the subject isn't very convincing to me.

So, basically you would like to deny everything that describes Hogan as the best ballstriker ever ? Why should we deny what Bolt, Middlecoff, Nicklaus, Trevino, Knudson, Moe, Venturi and Dickinson said or wrote ? You say -- myths. I say I can bring MANY examples of Hogan's not missing a fairway or green during entire rounds in competition. Why his contemporary opponents on Tour say that if he could putt he would win much more than Nicklaus and Snead ? Isn't the fact that he had the best % of wins post-secret and mainly post-accident being a horrible putter a significant one ?
These are facts, not myths -- and I am sticking to such. I am last man who would like to make stories more colourful. I am just quoting people who not only had no interest in making Hogan's legend more colourful but also were/are themselves great golfers and they knew/know their stuff.

Second, I think the understanding of what drives human performance is much better now. It takes nothing away from any golfer who has been dominant in their era to say that knowledge progresses and standards rise - but you are very unwilling to concede that point. In every walk of life, there are people who stubbornly insist that things were much better back in the day. And that was surely the case back in the 50s too. When nostalgia seems hard-wired into the human condition, I think it's reasonable to be sceptical about your arguments in the absence of hard, supporting stats. Obviously, we have Hogan's playing record if not his performance stats, and he was undoubtedly a hell of a player.

Nostalgia is one thing, facts are the other thing.
Again -- there are some supporting stats as I said above. If you do not want to believe old greats who played against Hogan and admitted that he rarely missed a fairway or green -- look at his % of wins or top3's or top10's and combine the numbers with poor putting !!! Who can win/be high in so many tournaments without a good putting ? Only a supernatural superb ballstriking machine. I doubt there is somebody able to deny what I have just written.
Of course, there will come others who say that his putting was excellent and he won many tournaments thanks to his putting. ROFL.

I very much doubt whether your enthusiasm for Hogan would cause quite so many arguments if you weren't so bloody disparaging about modern players. I don't think it's too strong to say that you seem to hate modern golf, and most modern successful golfers. In my opinion, if you had a bit more respect for modern golfers and the game that they play, then you would carry a lot more credibility.

Mostly true. But it is unfair from your part to say that I hate every player. No, I love accurate and consistent players while I hate bombing whackers who can be presented as great champions only because of lack of penalties. I said many times why my opinion is such -- but let me say in one sentence again -- because control is the name of the game.

Lastly, you say that you're in the rare minority that will admit their mistakes. It doesn't appear to me that you've changed, moderated or developed your views about Hogan in the years that I've seen you posting. That's all well and good - you're entitled to your opinion. But what's the point of swamping a discussion board if you're not interested in discussion. You have someone like Nitro who says that he has first hand knowledge of a number of the players that you cited as ballstriking paragons - and you treat the guy like a hostile witness and insult his intelligence. I'm not interested in who threw the first stone - I'm just saying that you don't act like someone who actually wants to discuss the subject or learn anything new.

Yes I admit mistakes. Perhaps you are too much focusing on my mistakes than on my admitting them. But if I say I'd do something if -- I am always doing it. Even my opponents should admit that I am not lying now.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Think you've managed to do that pretty well yourself even without their efforts.
Like you often say, "ROFL"...

And I thought that at least this thread will explain everything I do care about as this forum member in the spirit of frankness and meritoric debate...

I'm not interested in who threw the first stone

Maybe you should, Birly. Perhaps your opinion will change a bit. It is really tough not to go defensive and harsh in front of such mentally retarded people.

 

[puttmaster]

DJ - just try going a year or two without mentioning Hogan. Everyone knows he is your idol. But we don't need to read about it ad nauseum.

Or, at least, dispense with constantly putting him on a pedestal while simultaneously referring to the best golfers in the world as hackers, goathumpers, pussies, etc. It really gets old and it undermines your credibility.

Cheers.

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - as regards Hogan's status, opinions are evidence, but not all evidence is fact. Surely we can agree that no-one can actually quantify how good or bad Hogan's putting really was, or how good his ballstriking really was - because the stats weren't kept.

There's a weight to the opinions that make up Hogan's reputation (and I don't think anyone seriously disputes that) but I think that there are too many human factors in play to conclude that Tiger isn't fit to lace Hogan's spikes.

If you were going to be convicted of speeding - would you want the case against you to be based on an eye-witness assessment, or a speed gun?

You speculate that Hogan would have won far more than Snead if only Hogan could putt better. Well how about the fact that Snead suffered from the yips? I'd like to know how much Snead would have won, even with his ropey putting, if he had just had Hogan's mental game. Read Dodson's book, and see if you don't come away with the impression that Hogan's real edge was mental strength. Just like Jones before him, and just like Jack and Tiger.

Really - I think you have a very black and white view of the world. Truth or myth. Genius or idiot. Controlled golf or crap golf. Ballstriking legend or incompetent whacker. If you'll take my advice, it would be to lighten up somewhat. Allow that there might be shades of grey (your hero's favourite colour after all!). Enjoy the complexity and ambiguity. And accept that you can't really draw direct comparisons between golfers 50 years apart. If you can do that, then I think (a) fewer threads will get derailled, and (b) people will stop baiting you.

 

[Dariusz J.]

DJ - just try going a year or two without mentioning Hogan. Everyone knows he is your idol. But we don't need to read about it ad nauseum.

Or, at least, dispense with constantly putting him on a pedestal while simultaneously referring to the best golfers in the world as hackers, goathumpers, pussies, etc. It really gets old and it undermines your credibility.

Cheers.

Point taken. No more whackers and pussies. I shouldn't have called someone thousands times better than myself like that. You're right. But "goathumper" is just a colloquial description of someone who loses his tush line during the downswing.

Dariusz - as regards Hogan's status, opinions are evidence, but not all evidence is fact. Surely we can agree that no-one can actually quantify how good or bad Hogan's putting really was, or how good his ballstriking really was - because the stats weren't kept.

Actually, we can to a big degree ! If there is lots of evidenced rounds of Hogan (that he hit 100% FIR and GIR) and we know scores we can deduct how bad was his putting ! Am I wrong ?

There's a weight to the opinions that make up Hogan's reputation (and I don't think anyone seriously disputes that) but I think that there are too many human factors in play to conclude that Tiger isn't fit to lace Hogan's spikes.

Here I must agree with you. Point taken. No more silly comparisons. I shouldn't have said that Woods or Nicklaus copuldn't polish Hogan's shoes. You're right.

You speculate that Hogan would have won far more than Snead if only Hogan could putt better. Well how about the fact that Snead suffered from the yips? I'd like to know how much Snead would have won, even with his ropey putting, if he had just had Hogan's mental game. Read Dodson's book, and see if you don't come away with the impression that Hogan's real edge was mental strength. Just like Jones before him, and just like Jack and Tiger.

No. It is no my speculation. These are exact words of Bolt who was certain about this point.

Really - I think you have a very black and white view of the world. Truth or myth. Genius or idiot. Controlled golf or crap golf. Ballstriking legend or incompetent whacker. If you'll take my advice, it would be to lighten up somewhat. Allow that there might be shades of grey (your hero's favourite colour after all!). Enjoy the complexity and ambiguity. And accept that you can't really draw direct comparisons between golfers 50 years apart. If you can do that, then I think (a) fewer threads will get derailled, and (b) people will stop baiting you.

Point taken. There are grey colours that I usually omit. I agree that sometimes it is stupid to do so.

Cheers

 

[Erik_K]

Dariusz - as regards Hogan's status, opinions are evidence, but not all evidence is fact. Surely we can agree that no-one can actually quantify how good or bad Hogan's putting really was, or how good his ballstriking really was - because the stats weren't kept.

There's a weight to the opinions that make up Hogan's reputation (and I don't think anyone seriously disputes that) but I think that there are too many human factors in play to conclude that Tiger isn't fit to lace Hogan's spikes.

If you were going to be convicted of speeding - would you want the case against you to be based on an eye-witness assessment, or a speed gun?

You speculate that Hogan would have won far more than Snead if only Hogan could putt better. Well how about the fact that Snead suffered from the yips? I'd like to know how much Snead would have won, even with his ropey putting, if he had just had Hogan's mental game. Read Dodson's book, and see if you don't come away with the impression that Hogan's real edge was mental strength. Just like Jones before him, and just like Jack and Tiger.

Really - I think you have a very black and white view of the world. Truth or myth. Genius or idiot. Controlled golf or crap golf. Ballstriking legend or incompetent whacker. If you'll take my advice, it would be to lighten up somewhat. Allow that there might be shades of grey (your hero's favourite colour after all!). Enjoy the complexity and ambiguity. And accept that you can't really draw direct comparisons between golfers 50 years apart. If you can do that, then I think (a) fewer threads will get derailled, and (b) people will stop baiting you.

HOF post, Birly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[curtisj76]

Who gives a shit? SERIOUSLY

I don't even follow all of the rants on this site because they are POINTLESS

What does anyone get out of life arguing about X is better than Y? You are NOT X and you are NOT Y

NOBODY on this whole F'n planet can say who the best golfer ever is. END OF STORY

PS Go study Babe Ruth or something

 

[Lindsey Newman]

I have watched more Hogan footage than any ther player by a long shot. Nobody can deny that the available footage of Hogan's golf swing AND persona are exquisite. Pure class in his dress, power in his swing and the lines and flow of his movement just awe inspiring.

That's it, nothing more or nothing less. The rest is "just word of mouth". Why can't we just appreciate it for what it is? He used different equipment, played different golf courses with way different conditioning. The game in general was different.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Ken Venturi - "Hogan would literally go weeks without missing a three footer."

 

[birly-shirly]

Ken Venturi - "Hogan would literally go weeks without missing a three footer."

If this is how you warm up for your final round Kevin, I'm glad you're thinking positive thoughts.

No go forth and emulate!

 

[ZAP]

Ken Venturi - "Hogan would literally go weeks without missing a three footer."

Nice.

 

[Matt 4-L]

But "goathumper" is just a colloquial description of someone who loses his tush line during the downswing.

It's also a colloquailism for somebody who lives down south and routes for SEC teams.

 

[birly-shirly]

Ken Venturi just called. He insists he's been misquoted. Meant to say "making" not "missing"...

 

[puttmaster]

It's also a colloquailism for somebody who lives down south and routes for SEC teams.

WTH?

 

[Matt 4-L]

WTH?

LOL, it's Big Ten country up here!

 

[puttmaster]

Ahhh, OK -- see you in Dallas on Sept. 1.

 

[Matt 4-L]

Ahhh, OK -- see you in Dallas on Sept. 1.

Only problem is I am a Michigan State alum so I like Michigan about as much as the SEC.

 

[faux_maestro]

Only problem is I am a Michigan State alum so I like Michigan about as much as the SEC.

Oh good, I'm not alone. I would like nothing more than to see AL A BAAMMMAAA get drilled, BUT it's that team up north......