Two, I have been meaning to ask you for a while…you have an amazing array of mementoes from the past, yardage books, videos of Frank Phillips, golf clubs, magazine articles,photographs etc…its almost like you knew that someday there would be an audience at ABS who would really appreciate it! 
Whatever the reason, good on you, and yes would love to see the pro yardage book.
Thankyou aiguille,
I always thought it good to hang onto a lot of the stuff I had…there was one VHS tape I was thinking of the other day which would have been awesome…but I have no idea where it is or what happened to it.
It was the video of the 1945 PGA Championship that Byron Nelson won over Sam Byrd in the 36 hole final in Ohio…it was incredible…about 45 minutes of film from the event…when it was matchplay…qualifying, early rounds and the finals…I have never seen it before or since that day on tv, youtube, golf channel…nowhere
It would have been an awesome addition to the site…maybe one day it will declare itself found but I am not holding out hope as I have looked everywhere…
I will post the yardage book from Shinnecock Hills when I can scan it in…for those that haven’t seen a tour yardage book it will be some different insight into how players go about their business on the course.
Lag,thanks for proving this video! I still remember watching the Sunday round back in 86. One of the best Opens I can remember. Great that Bradley played in that, made the cut and did well. Very very impressive on that course! I love watching old classic tourneys.
I have been thinking the very same thing, aiguille…almost like a destiny type thing…
And all of us here reap the joy and benefits!
Thanks for everything, Hugo—and happy birthday!
bent
bob
I watched through the first 45 minutes or so, and as just a general feeling, the thing that really sticks out to me, as it does in watching the older golf in general, is the lack of straight lines. It seems that the interest was in the shot at hand, not what was required to actually hit the shot. I always think of the Michelangelo quote where he said that he wasn’t really a sculptor, that the sculpture was already there, and that he was just knocking the bits off the outside of it. I always work towards approaching the game like that when sitting into a shot- I try to find my way into the shot as opposed to making the shot fit me. This seems like an instinctive part of the older game, especially the shot makers of the Persimmon/blade era.
The modern game expects results based on a formula- if I do this then I’ll get that. It’s all parallel lines and angles. Looking at Jack walk and work his way into his shots, I really get the sense that he’s seeing something that’s already there, very much in the way that Michelangelo did. Like any art form, the best do it the same way, I think. So I suppose, the picture creates the action, and the action then creates the picture. So the picture comes first? Would this be an answer to the intent question?
I couldn’t get over how much better Hal Sutton’s swing appeared to be in my eyes with a persimmon in his hand.
That’s quite a leader board
Correction on my brain fart comment above. I knew Bradley played in the Open in the Mid 90s, not the one in 86. Duh…
The commentators of course noted how vital it is to keep the ball in the fairway, and better yet to position the ball into the correct side of the fairway. Sutton was not driving the ball as well as usual and it cost him. Crenshaw on the ninth found trouble off the tee and had to hack out of the rough leaving what looked like about 120 yards in for his third. It’s a long hole and you just have to get the ball in play to have a chance of getting on the green. It was a great save he made, making that crucial putt and turned 3 under on the front. Some great golf there.
As the leaders make the turn, Lanny Watkins is lighting it up at 5 under for the day going into 16 and pulls within a shot looking to post the “number in the clubhouse”. Norman makes a great birdie in #7 to show he is still interested in winning.
The wind is kicking up for the back nine, blowing about 20 mph… so conditions are getting more difficult. Trevino’s 3 wood into the par 5 fifth was impressive knocking it on the green from 265. Great stuff there. He just doesn’t miss shots unless there is a real reason, such as his ball landing in a fairway divot on #9 which ended up costing him a bogey. Certainly a bad break there. I loved the swing he made driving it off the 9th. Working the ball right to left shaping the drive for the situation and it was really amazing to see him hitting it right with Bob Tway who I know was pretty long.
All in all the ball control demonstrated by these guys is just something that has been lost in the modern game.
It’s amazing how much has changed about the game in such a short span of time. What a shame.
Captain Chaos
The modern players simply don’t have to learn to execute the variety or palate of shots that was once required, and that was such a big part of the game. Learning to hit long irons, learning to keep the ball under the wind, learning to shape the ball into the greens, and learning to drive the ball straight. In this coverage (86) you just don’t see the guys hitting it all over the golf course. Trevino rarely ever misses as shot. Most all the drives you see are landing in the fairway, and if they don’t it’s really a struggle to make par. It’s because the modern players are not required to learn these shots that the pros are not as good today.
Of course had the game not changed, then this would NOT be the case, and there would be a whole new generation of great players who WOULD know how to play golf. We would be seeing a completely different set of names out there. Many of the guys today would not be on tour. Some would, but there would be a lot of new faces, mostly shorter hitters who would havelearned to shape the ball and would have a huge advantage over the guys that just bomb it and can’t keep it in play.
If you look at Norman, he was really long back then, but he is basically only 20 yards by his opponents, not 60 yards or 80 yards. The modern gear is just widening the gap between the long and short hitters exponentially with the springboard effect off the driver faces that doesn’t really kick into full capacity until the swing speeds get up in the 120 mph range and over. You have some of these guys now on occasion hitting it 360 or more… while the shorter hitter is back there at 280. Since the newer courses lack trees and basically play much more open off the tee, the shorter hitters can’t compete against someone 80 yards past them, even if that player is 40 or 60 yards off line.
I disagree that today’s players are better because they are stronger. What has happened is that the game is allowing stronger players to be competitive if they can also putt. The modern swing has evolved out of the modern gear. Very little requirement for precision of the strike with the driver. No requirement to learn how to hit the difficult long irons… so the golf swings now are inferior to those of the past… because there is no real advantage to having a tighter precision based golf swing with the longer clubs. If Bubba or Dustin were to be playing on Sunday in 86, you would not be seeing them swinging the club they way they do now… I am not saying that they could not learn a swing that would be toned down or trimmed back for accurate striking, but you would not see them swinging the way they do now and expect to see them teeing off Saturday morning yet alone even making through local or sectional qualifying. You would see them swinging more like Hal Sutton or Chip Beck.
I don’t blame any of the young players for playing the style of power golf the modern game allows. The blame starts of course with the equipment companies strong arming the USGA, and the USGA not fighting back hard enough or being clever enough, or the PGA Tour not just dropping down their own set of rules. The courts made a bad decision, but I don’t see why a ruling in a US Court should affect the policies of the European Tour or the Asian Tour.
Here is a pic of Greg Norman chilling on the range from about that time frame of mid 80’s…you can get a good look at his persimmon of choice.
Was he using an Eye O Matic M60?
I have searched the internet and the consensus seems to be he used a M43 in the mid 80’s…which is the era of that photo of him sitting on the range bucket
I also found this nice post by freddiec on another forum giving some great details about the Sharks’ persimmon toys
Two,
Thats correct. Greg used a M43 for many years. I have a cool pdf of it being refinished in different stages that Dave Wood sent me. When i find it I’ll post it. Dave was trying to sell Greg on a Wood Bros driver in the 80s and while at Dave’s shop Greg saw a M43 the he liked the look of. Dave took all the face progression off and reduced the loft. Dave told me it was in pretty poor shape before he started the work. He used it to win the British Open. Here is a cool pic of Greg using a Texan right before he went to Cobra Ti.
Nice pic freddie…look forward to the other pics also
When dave mentions Norman’s M43 was a fluke…what is he talking about…that it was a flatter or more upright lie than the 57 degrees mentioned in the article?
TwoMasters,
Greg’s M43’s was solid. (no bored out cavity under the plate). Ben Crenshaw’s M85 which Dave also custom’d out of his shop (similar background story as well) was also solid, but both did have the small weight on the back. Thats why Dave called both “a fluke”. Wood Bros drivers were also solid. They were probably one of the only makers who did not add weight in the shaft, or lead in the head. All the WBs were oil hardened to specific head weight, I’m sure you probably know that. 
Here is that file showing Greg’s M43 being refinished by Dave.
Great story and pics and what a beautiful looking block! Thanks Freddie!
ps… Love the way Dave just had a few Texas-shaped sole plates laying around the workbench.