Hogan at the Open

[ej20]

I think you are making it all up. Nicklaus couldn't swing like Hogan because Hogan had the almost perfect swing and all Nicklaus could do is win with his inferior motion...lol. Hogan didn't have a flat swing it just wasn't as upright.

Hogan had as flat a swing as anyone where it mattered...he famously laid off the club in the transition.This requires a clockwise rotation of the left forearm to start the downswing.I have no idea how these players can consistently tumble the club back to square in such a short period of time.The rotational skill required is unbelievable.

You readers out there in amateur land forget it.

 

[footwedge]

Hogan had as flat a swing as anyone where it mattered...he famously laid off the club in the transition.This requires a clockwise rotation of the left forearm to start the downswing.I have no idea how these players can consistently tumble the club back to square in such a short period of time.The rotational skill required is unbelievable.

You readers out there in amateur land forget it.

See, that's why Hogan was the best, he did the most with the hardest type of swing requiring the greatest skill, Dariusz is right and deserves an apology.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Like Dariusz is not theorizing either.lol.His biokinetic theory relies on the fact that Hogan was a good a ballstriker as he was due only to his biomechanics and not other factors like talent and a single minded practice dedication to the swing that is second to none other than perhaps Moe.This would validate his theory which is "90% Hogan" but not based on Hogan.Yes,conveniently 10% is not Hogan so that he gets some credit also.lol

You just show your blatant ignorance (not the first time, BTW) concerning my theories yet still you attack me with your nonsenses without any reason changing the topic of the thread just to attack me for the second time in this thread. Are you jealous of something or maybe have deeply hidden psycho complaints ? Sad times, really.

 

[Dariusz J.]

See, that's why Hogan was the best, he did the most with the hardest type of swing requiring the greatest skill, Dariusz is right and deserves an apology.

Such swing type is the hardest only for those who do not understand what a setup-dependent motion is. The problem of the golfers is that they think they stand over the ball without a correct stance, grip, waggle and trigger and all will magically happen itself. Yes, for those golfers, attempts of mimicking Hogan or other greats with a perpendicular-to-the-core plane will end in collapse. 99.9% of those who tries or tried to mimick Hogan never ever put the squeeze to have every fundamental and physical rules of the swing and expect miracles. That's the sad truth. Now go chuckle with your ignorant buddy.

 

[footwedge]

Such swing type is the hardest only for those who do not understand what a setup-dependent motion is. The problem of the golfers is that they think they stand over the ball without a correct stance, grip, waggle and trigger and all will magically happen itself. Yes, for those golfers, attempts of mimicking Hogan or other greats with a perpendicular-to-the-core plane will end in collapse. 99.9% of those who tries or tried to mimick Hogan never ever put the squeeze to have every fundamental and physical rules of the swing and expect miracles. That's the sad truth. Now go chuckle with your ignorant buddy.

That's the thanks I get for backing you up...geeez. EJ is not ignorant... he is just well informed, sometimes people get those two things mixed up.

 

[Dariusz J.]

That's the thanks I get for backing you up...geeez.

Backing me up ? Do you think I am an idiot ? I guess you do.

 

[DCgolf]

Unfortunately, the Best Ball Striker debate will never be settled without more detailed statistics (Fwy, GIR, fairway width, rough height, etc.), which are just not available for those historic tournaments. Comparing one generation to another is nearly impossible given all the considerations.

I'd offer up that we have probably never heard of the best ball striker everl; there are probably a bunch of guys who can't putt, fold under any kind of tournament pressure, and maybe don't have the motivation to pursue tournament golf, but could light up a Trackman at a dri




ving range like a Christmas tree.








On the thread's topic, it looks like Hogan dominated for a shorter period of time, but you have to give Nicklaus some consideration as the most dominating US Open player; longevity has to count for something, no?

Absolutely. He won majors over 24 years!!! The reason Hogans career was short was not because of the accident, but he just figured it out late. Very late. At 33 Tiger had 14 majors. Hogan had none. From his mid 30's to mid early mid 40's The Hawk was awesome. But the reason Jack doubled his total was longevity. Nicklaus came within 6/7 shots of winning 8 Opens. He was first or second in a major 39 times! It's so obvious.

 

[SteveT]

Apples and oranges ... we are now embarking on the New Age of Aquarius in the World of Golf... believe it.

 

[footwedge]

Backing me up ? Do you think I am an idiot ? I guess you do.

Your a good guesser.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Absolutely. He won majors over 24 years!!! The reason Hogans career was short was not because of the accident, but he just figured it out late. Very late. At 33 Tiger had 14 majors. Hogan had none. From his mid 30's to mid early mid 40's The Hawk was awesome. But the reason Jack doubled his total was longevity. Nicklaus came within 6/7 shots of winning 8 Opens. He was first or second in a major 39 times! It's so obvious.

You know, if longevity is the main criterium, noone will ever take the throne from Nicklaus. However, I prefer to use percentages since they represent much better the power of a golfer during his (longer or shorter) carrer. Let's look at the numbers again:

Summary of performances in majors -- Nicklaus:

Starts – 163
Wins – 18
Top-three finishes – 46
Top-five finishes – 56
Top-10 finishes – 73
Longest streak of top-10s in majors – 13


Summary of performances in majors -- Hogan:

Starts - 57
Wins - 9
Top 3 finishes - 17
Top 5 finishes - 25
Top 10 finishes - 40
Longest streak of Top 10s in majors - 18

9/57 > 18/163; 17/57 > 46/163, etc. Should I go on or you will make calculations yourself ? The only one math Nicklaus is SLIGHTLY better is comparison of 2nd places in majors.

Cheers

 

[magicmarker]

Are you sure 163 starts in majors is correct? That seems high...

SteveT I like how you throw out tangents that lead to your thread jacks.

 

[spktho]

Are you sure 163 starts in majors is correct? That seems high...

4 majors a year for 40 years and then 3 another year?

What age did he turn pro? 22-23? Played in the majors until he was in his 60's.

 

[magicmarker]

actually I think he is right, I just wiki'd it and he played two majors in 2005...

Not exactly going out in your prime right? But he did finish tied for 6th at the Masters in 98'... He had two top tens and only one missed cut in the 90's in 9 starts at Augusta....that's a BAD MAN!

 

[SteveT]

Are you sure 163 starts in majors is correct? That seems high...

SteveT I like how you throw out tangents that lead to your thread jacks.

Your right, and it's because I'm sooo jealous of all you great golf historians. ("historian" - somebody who thinks backwards)!

 

[ej20]

You just show your blatant ignorance (not the first time, BTW) concerning my theories yet still you attack me with your nonsenses without any reason changing the topic of the thread just to attack me for the second time in this thread. Are you jealous of something or maybe have deeply hidden psycho complaints ? Sad times, really.

Unlike yourself I don't personally attack people,only their theories which is perfectly fair otherwise why have chat forums?So we can advertise our theories without any criticisms and only praise?You wish!

Unlike yourself I don't call people names and use ad hominem attacks.I have read that you have been banned from forums which I will not name for insulting Americans using foul language.

You don't just need to brush up your biomechanics knowledge of which you have no formal training.You also need to brush up your PR skills which is even worse.

 

[DCgolf]

You know, if longevity is the main criterium, noone will ever take the throne from Nicklaus. However, I prefer to use percentages since they represent much better the power of a golfer during his (longer or shorter) carrer. Let's look at the numbers again:

Summary of performances in majors -- Nicklaus:

Starts – 163
Wins – 18
Top-three finishes – 46
Top-five finishes – 56
Top-10 finishes – 73
Longest streak of top-10s in majors – 13


Summary of performances in majors -- Hogan:

Starts - 57
Wins - 9
Top 3 finishes - 17
Top 5 finishes - 25
Top 10 finishes - 40
Longest streak of Top 10s in majors - 18

9/57 > 18/163; 17/57 > 46/163, etc. Should I go on or you will make calculations yourself ? The only one math Nicklaus is SLIGHTLY better is comparison of 2nd places in majors.

Cheers

Real simple: Go to bat twice in your career, get a hit, and you're the greatest hitter who ever lived. He played in 57 majors in 35 years! During his pro career, he was eligible for 125 or so majors (war years and accident not included) . And if percentages are the criteria, Tiger Woods has 14 wins in 56 professional starts in majors. We can bend the numbers however we want, but true greatness is not hot for a short while. It is Nicklausian sustained brilliance...I grant Ben his 6/7 years, but he won 30 professional events before he won a major. Simply got great late.

 

[birly-shirly]

DC is dead on.
Dariusz is cherry-picking his stats.
According to wikipedia, Jack's career on the main tour was from '62 to '89, or 27 years. Hogan's equivalent period was '34 to '67, or 34 years! Yup - both periods extend way beyond both players' prime, but it's a direct comparison like for like. Takes nothing away from how great Hogan was in his prime, but ...

 

[Dariusz J.]

DC is dead on.
Dariusz is cherry-picking his stats.
According to wikipedia, Jack's career on the main tour was from '62 to '89, or 27 years. Hogan's equivalent period was '34 to '67, or 34 years! Yup - both periods extend way beyond both players' prime, but it's a direct comparison like for like. Takes nothing away from how great Hogan was in his prime, but ...

A fair point and it is hard not to agree to you to some extent. I wonder only about this 1989 year for Nicklaus - so does it mean he retired just 3 years after his last major in the age of 49 ?

I grant Ben his 6/7 years, but he won 30 professional events before he won a major. Simply got great late.

Yes, that's why I do like to compare (for what is possible to do) only post-secret Hogan since pre-secret Hogan's swing is not of my interest at all. I know it is not entirely fair that's why I used numbers for his whole carreer.

Unlike yourself I don't personally attack people,only their theories which is perfectly fair otherwise why have chat forums?So we can advertise our theories without any criticisms and only praise?You wish!

Unlike yourself I don't call people names and use ad hominem attacks.I have read that you have been banned from forums which I will not name for insulting Americans using foul language.

You don't just need to brush up your biomechanics knowledge of which you have no formal training.You also need to brush up your PR skills which is even worse.

Not only you don't know the history and how much I suffered from people similar to you...but you do not know even how many fora I was banned from. You're ignorant also in this post. Pathetic.

Cheers