Budman,
You don’t seem to get it, the players from the past very rarely put them in those positions to have to play a shot like that. Great ball striking is about picking out a target and actually hit the ball there. If Tiger had total control of the ball why is he hitting from the rough in the first place?
Quick answer, yes:
As for playing under pressure of winning millions of dollars, in the past they played to win golf tournaments, these days the play to win money. If it was one dollar or a million, Hogan wanted to win. Players these days are content to plod along making huge money and not strive to become the best, guys who have never won a tour event are multi-millionares. Why would they bother trying to get better?
Like I said, we need to reconsider talking about driving accuracy compared to the pasts. The shift to graphite has effected the whole PGA in a statistically proven negative. Everyone has gotten less accurate in the switch and graphite is still an infant technology on tour. It has gotten better but it is still no where near as accurate as steel. Tiger is there in first place because he is fighting graphite even more with his 120mph club head speed like the other big hitters. It simply mocks physics for us to sit here and complain how wild they are off the tee now compared to steel shaft era.
Here:
Correlation dropped In half in 1990 with the start of metal heads and graphite shafts. The drop to near zero in 2002 was the intro of the modern ball with the Prov1, ending the wound ball era basically overnight.
So let’s PLEASE stop talking about driving accuracy. They are all handicapped standing on tee with graphite and Prov’s to point it isn’t even a fair comparison. But this doesn’t and shouldn’t take away from any world class top ball striking we still see at times with irons, like examples I gave.
And yeah, looking at that second video again I agree, there is no way tiger was pin hunting there. He was thinking “green” though. Just blocked it though and got lucky. Just like at Honda 18th a few weeks ago during his 62.
Bottom line though what I am saying… If they HAD to, PGA pros would hate it but eventually be just as competent with blades and persimmon.
Wtf? Are you really trying to compare pulling off a low launching 5i hook around trees with 15mph winds to land 7ft from pin to a straight tee shot? 
You were talking about top notch ball striking under pressure weren’t you? So hitting a 1-iron into the 72nd hole of a US Open needing a par to force a playoff isn’t a pressure shot?
Tigers shot was 9th hole, Day 1. Wow what pressure
This whole debate reminds me of myself as a kid watching the olympics 50km walking competition and thinking how fast those guys must be able to run as they even walk faster than I could run back then…Just saying, as it has been already said a couple dozen times, thinking that a modern superstar golfer would automatically be a superstar in the old game is just pure false analogy. The requirements are way different. Modern golf: hit it far, be creative with the wedges, putt well = Rory is king. Traditional golf: control the flight, manage the course, avoid 3 putting (sorry Knudson) = greatest strikers steal the show. Lag has said it so many times I really don’t know why some refuse to understand the logic: the game (rules) defines what the king looks like. You just won’t see a 50km walker beat Usain Bolt on a 100m sprint.
I think that you are actually providing interesting evidence for a key tenet of the ABS philosophy. Of course, players will be less accurate with graphite. A big part of the argument in favor of the strikers of the steel and balata era is that they learned with superior equipment, and their golf swings evolved in a different way because of the equipment. It also “mocks physics”, as you say, to think that giving someone a 46 inch graphite shafted driver with a 460 CC head isn’t going to change the way they learn to swing a club. I also think we all agree that “at times” there are fantastic iron shots hit by anyone on the PGA TOUR today. But for every video of Tiger hitting a miraculous iron shot around the tree you can post, someone can post another of him missing a green long and left. It doesn’t necessarily negate the argument just because there are instances where modern golfers hit great shots. The argument isn’t that they never hit quality shots, but that they don’t do it as frequently as players from the past, whose swings evolved from better equipment.
The modern gear is not good gear for hitting the ball straight. The modern swings are not primarily designed to hit the ball straight. What they are designed for is to play longer wide open golf courses. It’s not much different than a dragster vs a formula one race car. Different designs for different venues.
The controlling powers of the game have decided that the venues should look more like drag strips than banked and curved racetracks. They put up huge money and the players and their pit crews try to figure out what is best to come out on top of the flat linear version of what is now called pro golf.
But most amateurs don’t play these kind of venues.
So generally speaking, the modern gear is not good gear for narrower more demanding golf courses.
The old thin blades would still be the choice for a top ball striker. You still see some guys using something similar. You can do more with the golf ball with a blade iron than a cavity back… especially if playing balata or a higher spinning ball like the old Spalding Tour Edition Norman used. A ball like that could still be made.
Being able to put side spin on the golf ball is a friend to the good striker. It’s the enemy of a poor golfer.
Again, it is really like the bicycle vs tricycle analogy. The tricycle is easier and safer to ride, but not as versatile. But a better rider would prefer a bicycle and once you learn to ride one… it’s not hard to do so. But you have to learn how to ride it. It’s like the younger pros have never been on a bicycle, they are used to the ease of balancing on three wheels and get very good at riding on the safety of three wheels… but I would argue that if they had to leave the safety net of three point stability and then have to create that kind of stability through am more advanced technique to gain access to more maneuverability, not all of them would be successful at the transition… due to many factors.
So the big headed frying pans and juiced up golf balls, and box grooves, milled faces, are helping stabilize the players, but ultimately they are being handicapped by the convenience of what they think is helping them… if they had to perform on a more sophisticated stage that would include a tougher course with a higher spinning ball.
It would truly be frightening to see how much farther offline the pros today would stray a balata ball coming off a frying pan. If the rough was high, these clubs would not be in tour bags. They would be over at the drag strip only.
Speaking of Greats, Arnold Palmer was discussing today on the Golf Channel how European and international Golfers are dominating the United States golfers. He stated that the events now have such large purse amounts that players are getting comfortable with winning anything and not striving to get to number 1. As back then, the purse werent anything near as huge as today and placing 1st meant more than the money. He went on to say that the whole world is watching these golfers and once U.S. starts to open their eyes that they are being dominated by international and European golfers constantly, a reverse effect should happen eventually.
Only U.S. player in this era that has really dominated and hold number 1 for a number of years is Tiger Woods, hopefully he might turn himself around to dominate again.
Do any of you care what Countries are dominating in today’s era of golf?
Would it not to be fair to say that has always been true?
For example until Arnie led by example many US pros ( including Hogan who went just once) didn’t make the trip to the UK for The Open because there wasn’t enough money in it.
Complacency in the pro ranks is not a modern phenomenon.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Hogan took a boat over. That’s a long trip and taking that time back and forth into consideration might make one not want to do that every year. Hogan basically didn’t play in the PGA Championship much either as he didn’t care for match play format…but did win both those events anyway to prove he could do it.
Personally I have always been much more impressed by the players who could continent hop and can get off a plane with jet lag and shoot 66 in a Wednesday pro am. Takes a much better simpler golf swing to do that.
Trying to “time” a hand flick going through impact via a pivot stall is why I left TGM and the Yellow Book. Nice stuff in theory, but not what I saw the top strikers doing because for most, it is simply not practical.
Gary Player says, “Thanks for the compliment.” 
Yep, he definitely had a swing that could travel and did he ever travel. (24 PGA wins and 120+ wins elsewhere). He surely had an appropriate last name. Player was an absolute player.
As for Hogan, yeah the Concorde hadn’t been invited yet so it literally was a slow boat for most to get there. I don’t think that Hogan could stand taking the slower planes of the time over there because of his leg.
The fact that he was able to win the Open the first and only time out with “boat lag” says alot. 
Snead said his winnings were less than his costs and he won it.
Hmm I guess, you missed the part about Tiger hooking his tee shot (using new titanium/graphite technology) into the trees and getting a lucky bounce onto the fairway to setup that shot. So he already had a practice hook shot before this one. Also he was able to hook that shot onto the green much more easily because he uses blade irons (the old school technology). If he had the latest oversized cavity backs, he probably wouldn’t be able to do that. Have him hit a bucket of balls from there and see how many end up that close on the green. It was none the less a great shot (with some luck).
The old fairway bunker shot over water to a tucked pin (greatest shot ever by man or mankind!!!). I heard him comment on his shot at the time and he was definitely not going for the pin. He said he was going for the middle of the green but blocked it and got lucky. Just look at his expression of major concern after hitting it. That’s not the face of someone who just flushed it exactly on the line he wanted. Of course as the years go on, it turns from a great miss into a great shot.
Take anyone who plays alot of golf (even weekend hackers like us) and we have all hit some amazing shots at times even professional quality shots. The more chances we get to hit a great shot = more actual great shots. We just don’t have a camera watching our every shot to record it for us (luckily we don’t have to hide the evidence of our not so great shots)
Frank Nobilo throws in his 2 cents during today’s coverage of the Tavistock Cup:
“…I think somedays the modern game or the modern players are done a disservice, because there’s always the comparison to players of yesteryear…
So in some respects you want them to use similar equipment. So you could still marvel at the ability they show. The long players would still be long.”
Seems like he’s not-so-subtly hinting that he’s not impressed by all the technological advances, while not taking a direct stab at the players themselves. I took it as him saying: “It would be great to see these guys using gear that wasn’t so forgiving, the new stuff being so helpful keeps it from being as impressive as it should be.”
Does the new equipment diminish the fan’s enjoyment of the game? I know I watch golf differently these days…
Agreed. The golf I see today is not the golf I used to enjoy watching. It has actually become quite boring from a ballstriking view. They don’t have to hit fairways or curve it around/over/under things as much any more. No more thinking your way around a course, now it’s just “HULK SMASH!!!” golf with a little pitching/chipping clinic with a putting contest after that. Fairway bunkers are just an alignment tool as they hit their drives over them and the ball waves hello/bye-bye at the fairway bunker as it reaches its apex and carries another 40 yards past. Greenside bunkers are just giant white powered ashtrays that are perfectly smooth that the pros sometimes aim for instead of the green because its a better place to “miss” to. And to think, they call that a hazard.
Rough today? That’s what they used to call fairways of yesteryear. Greens so manicured and rolled, you’d think you were putting on a pool table. Now you know why pros have that “I can’t believe I missed it” look on their faces when they have a 40 footer and not make it.
The recent changes to grooves didn’t do anything but make the equipment companies happy. (Buy now before we can’t make the old grooved clubs to get the high spin rates, but then buy the new grooved clubs to “play like the pros”). You don’t need grooves if you’re hitting approach shots with your wedges all day long even if you’re in the “rough”.
Just recently I watch Rory and some of the other players in that recent Accenture Match play tournament driving the green on a short par 4 (333 yds) with their 3 woods. Neat if I was watching a long drive competition, but this was supposed to be a World Championship.
When I first started playing golf, a good drive was 250 for the pros. Long ball hitters averaged 270. I used to be able to hit 260 with the persimmon/“new” metal woods. I played the same equipment as the pros and got similar results, so I felt as though I could play like the pros. Scoring like a pro was another story. 
Now I do have modern titanium/graphite driver that I can hit 280+ even when I mishit it off the sweet spot but I’m way off of today’s pros (340 yrds). I could put it down to old age but I still hit my persimmon driver 260-270 today but God help me if I’m off the sweetspot by 1/4 inch. I lose 30-40 yards with my persimmon as punishment. I can be 3/4 of an inch off center with my toaster on a stick and still get 260+ and still be near the fairway. If I play my titanium too much I start to feel cocky and think “I got game”. Then when I go back to my persimmon, I get reminded that was the club not you.
I don’t feel like there is much in common with the pros and the local good players games anymore. There used to be much more parity and much more fun thinking you could play like the pros if you only worked harder on your game.
I guess I have to put the blame on John Daly (sort of 
). I remember the PGA Championship he won and all the hype about how incredibly long he was (hence Long John Daly) and his Kevlar driver. Nothing like having a “hang time” timer for his drives and “You da man!!!” screams. Once length became the TV ratings biggest boost for golf, at the same time technology was coming to the forefront and the equipment manufactures got people to pay $500 for a single driver, the modern game of golf has gone downhill ever since. It’s now about money, money, and some even more money. People are convinced they can buy length but judging by the weekend hacks I see on the course, more distance just puts them deeper into the water/trees.
I don’t see a problem having a titanium/graphite driver but limit its size to 260cc not 460cc and we might have some cause for celebration. Sure you can still swing like a madman but you probably are going to have to pay dearly for a mishit. I do like the technology of being able to adjust your driver loft/lie/open/closedness via screws/threaded shafts. That is technology that helps setup a club for its user without having to bend/file a club to get it like you want. It also helps keep manufacturing cost down by not having to make a Fade and Draw driver in addition to your straight driver. The oversized, giant sweet spotted, high COR, super light weight, windtunnel aerodynamics technology is merely a crutch to its user, not a help. I’ve heard the phrase “let the club do the work” but this is getting ridiculous. 
So is anyone going to answer my question?
When Hogan and Nelson were playing, most pros were playing for second place at best. Have a look at the records from that time. Until Walter Hagan, everyone had a club job as well.
You have to go back to the matches of the late 19th century if you truly want to see events that were all about establishing who were the best players of the day…
In the past I didn’t think to much about the older generation of players. I read about Hogan, Trevino and Nicklaus but until recently didn’t realize they were playing a different game. My light bulb moment was when I tried to hit a persimmon wood for the first time in 24 years ( I only played persimmon for maybe one year because taylor came out with their metal wood). The first few attempts were laughable but after a while I started connecting and now enjoy the challenge of playing persimmon. Then, I watched the Snead VS Hogan match at Houston CC which was played at 7,065 yards. Watching Hogan hit every fairway and green playing persimmons, blades and a spinning ball was jaw dropping. He was hitting 2 irons and 4 woods into greens and knocking them stiff. That was a clinic on how you should strike a golf ball. I still enjoy watching the current generation but the viewing experience isn’t close to the shell’s match.