Lag, your post mentioned rory and tiger, I was just commenting on your comparrison. But I agree, he’s not the next tiger, tiger stands alone in my book. I’m not on my latop so I’ll comment on some of other stuff later on. Maybe i’m a bit of a traditionalist but I don’t think there’s any place for purposly using a grandstand to win a golf tournament, never mind to win the open.
I feel like often grandstands are too close to the greens… and the free drops from them are a shame. However, if a free drop is offered, then the player has every right to use it. I agree with Phil Mickleson about using the “L wedge” that was made legal, grandfathered in or whatever. If it is legal, use it. The players have every right to use space age golf balls, frying pans for drivers or any other thing the USGA deems legal, PGA Tour or whatever organization.
But the point I will make endlessly is that all this stuff SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL in the first place. But the real solution is for the game to fracture. Then players can pick their venue. Proper traditional golf or silly golf.
Reminds me when Kevin Costner hit one off “the Loo”. My kind of golf…crap 
I dearly wanted to comment, but that would make me Alfred (in the Batman and Robin dynamic duo)! I’ll stay quiet and be the Joker. 
Captain Chaos
Lag, I really have to shake my head when there are those that come here thinking that you are “bashing” the new players and then even question your reasons. I don’t hear that sentiment. Friends, Romans, and ABSers - Lag isn’t bashing new players…he’s saying that they aren’t necessarily quality ball strikers. Lag, TM, and a few others grew up, lived through, and worked during the transition to exotic metals in the highest levels of the sport! Come on…do we have to dig up Hogan and then you might believe what they are saying is true? Everyone should be able to agree that golf has changed. Nobody here is jealous of some current golfer’s success…period.
And to state that if TM had won the Honda with similar stats it would be a completely different story…I doubt that. There would be accolades for the win, but I’ll wager most students would be giving him hell for not using enough module 3 or some such.
Captain Chaos
VDV… He’s got a 3 shot lead so he needs a double to win. I agree that the tee shot was a fair decision, though I reckon he should’ve had his par 5 cap on and played it as such. After getting away with the tee shot, all he needs to do is wedge or 9 iron it down the fairway, wedge or 9 iron it on the green, and then 3 putt to win The Open. I’d see that as a guaranteed way to close it out. Taking on the stand opened up the option of exactly what happened, so by that very fact, that has to be a bad decision. Hitting 2 iron also brings OB long left into play, it was never the shot really. His decisions after that may very well have been good ones, but it was such a disastrous situation that he really didn’t have too many great options. I think there should be some sort of honour system where doing that kind of thing(hitting it into the stands) is frowned upon whether or not it’s technically legal. The Mickelson issue was pretty rich I thought, I can’t say I liked how he played it even though he was technically within his rights. But like you say, if it’s legal then why not- I can see that point too.
This is my point, you have direct knowledge of this point in history, but you don’t have it from before then, and you don’t really have it from now either. We don’t have the stats from the past, so I don’t think you can hold current stats up against experience or opinion, then compare them and expect an objective conclusion. Moe is one person, he doesn’t define a generation. I don’t disagree with the fundamentals of some of your points, but It’s difficult to discuss specifics sometimes, because you draw in overarching principles that I happen to agree with, but they can distract from the issue at hand. For example, i agree that the persimmon game was a finer version of golf, but we’re discussing Rory’s stats and how they hold up against historic greats, these are different issues. The wind was whipping around the place over the weekend, and he stood up and was counted, and held strong. That was champion golf. Averaging 12 greens a round in those conditions, and having the balls to scramble as he did, is pretty damn impressive whatever the era- chipping and putting is not a sin. Discounting those numbers without referencing the conditions, just doesn’t create a clear picture. Looking at the conditions, Jack said that he’d rather be Tiger in the house at -10, than Rory on the course at -12 with whatever amount of holes he had to play. That in itself says a great deal about Rory bringing it home. If I were to get some stats where Rory hit lots of fairways and lots of greens, and had average putts and still won, would that then be discussed as proof that he was comparable to the greats? If not, then the opposite can’t be done just because it fits the agenda. Again, I agree in principle with a lot of the points, but washing everyone with the same brush is crazy, and actually undermines the argument you’re putting forth as far as I see it. It’s hard to tell if you’re ripping on the game or on the players, though I suppose it becomes the same thing if they’re a product of the game.
A split in the game is the answer for sure, but who’d get the majors? 
I think the R&A could be convinced over time to bring the open back to what it was- that would be the dream.
Me too.
This concept of ‘quality ball striking’ gets bandied about the place like it means something definitive. Can anyone define what it even means? To somehow conclude that Rory, or anyone in the last 15 years, isn’t a ‘quality ball striker’ is madness. Hogan doesn’t need to be dug up to prove he was a great striker, but he was one man. Maybe there was a reason he was so revered by his peers- maybe they were all shite 
I say that with tongue in cheek, but there’s some merit in it somewhere.
I recently watched the Hogan/Snead shells match and couldn’t believe the quality of ball striking. They were hitting long irons and fairway woods into greens. I have not seen that level of ball striking on the pga tour in quite some time.
To me it is an unknown. I really don’t know how Rory or anyone would do playing in the persimmon era. They might adapt… they might not. Any generation will have it’s stars. If golf was still golf, someone would be winning majors. But it might be someone totally different. Might be a guy who can’t get through PGA Tour school the way they have it set up now?
I’d like to see the tour courses set up like they did at the Canadian Open last year. It just wiped the bomb and gouge guys right out of it and put them on a Friday night standby flight. Maybe not every week but at least half the events or more.
Give everyone a chance.
What is quality ball striking?
Well, I agree it’s not just stats. But to me you know it when you see it. Great strikers hit the ball where they are aiming. They might miss hit one or two shots a round. They miss greens because they rolled it through a dogleg, or the ball just skipped off the back of a green, or a gust of wind caught there ball and dropped it into the bunker. Not because they hit an 8 iron 40 yards left of the pin… or drove the ball 30 yards right of the fairway. I remember Greg Norman saying he went 2 years without double crossing a shot. (playing a fad and then hooking the ball or visa versa)
For example. The course I play most Mare Island is not long. Plays much longer than it is because you hit a lot of long irons off tees. It’s VERY tricky and very tight off the tee. Small sloping greens that are far from perfect surfaces with trouble all around. There is a par 4 where two steps off the back edge of the green is OB… but it is only a wedge shot in… so I am fine with that. I think I hit one OB there once in 5 years. It was a VERY poor shot I hit. Now my point is that when I first started playing there, they had a one round mini tour event. The “Pepsi Tour” played there. I wish I had known about it… but 4 over par won the tournament. 4 OVER PAR WON a one round event!!!
There is NO WAY that 4 over par wins on that golf course 20, 30 or even 70 years ago. The reason is that the young players have zero idea how to play the kind of golf you would need play such a course successfully. You HAVE TO hit the ball into the correct part of the fairway. You have to hit the ball into the correct part of the green. There is only one par 5 so you don’t get any free birdies. There are basically no flat lies on the golf course, and you have to know how to combine shot shaping with side hill lies AND stiff winds coming off the SF Bay. This is very advance golf.
These kinds of courses… are what require the greatest skill in playing golf. Cypress Point is one of the greatest courses on earth. Augusta used to be very similar. All these ball strikers courses are just sitting there… being ignored and labeled archaic or outdated. That is crazy!
The fact that a pro can win on the PGA Tour hitting half the fairways, and 11 or 12 greens a round is crazy. What is even crazier is that this is what wins nearly every week!
If modern tour players where to hit drives blindfolded in the general direction of the fairway… would it not be unreasonable to think 50% of their drives might find the fairway just based upon statistical probability? Would it make a difference if they didn’t even know where the pin was on the green? The surfaces are so pure now that Rory can play golf for 4 rounds and not miss a putt inside 10 feet… REALLY? Wow… I can guarantee you he would not have such success at the courses I play around here. I’m playing Lincoln Park in SF tomorrow… you you WILL miss your share of putts inside 6 feet even if you rolled every putt down a putting board slope aimed perfectly.
The par 5s are mostly all reachable now with often hybrids, mid irons or sometimes even short irons. So guys are really playing par 69’s out there. The new 12 under is the old even par. If six foot putts are basically gimmies, all you have to do is chip the ball inside a 12 foot circle around the hole from perfect bunkers and light rough and a wedge that you don’t even have to open up the face?
It’s just not that impressive.
Has Rory got game?
Let me tell you a quick story, no not the one about him shooting 61 round Royal Portrush aged 16.
Tail end of last year Rory was filming an Oakley promotional thing at Ballyliffen Golf Club in Ireland.
Between shots and witnessed by 40 people the head honcho guy from Oakley bets Rory he can’t hole a 30 yard chip from heavy rough. Rory holes it. Oakley guy, “Double or quits”, Rory holes it again.
The kid has game, get over it. 
If Rory is #1 in the world, it is well deserved. But don’t start comparing him to the greats of other eras unless he can prove that he can play an apples to apples game. Could he have won the US Open last year playing persimmon and balata through ankle deep rough on rock hard greens that DON’T hold shots from the rough, and sometimes from the fairway if the proper shot is not executed? Maybe, but maybe not. It’s an unknown. What if he had to putt on crap greens, or any of the guys today? What if they can’t make every putt inside 10 feet yet alone 5 feet simply due to common irregularities in the greens? The top player in the world today simply does not have as many great players to contend with. There may be more good players… but far fewer great players. Who did Tiger have to beat in his run to 14 majors? How ever impressive it is… it is not like running up those #'s in the era that Nicklaus did. Nicklaus had to beat Palmer in his prime, Lee Trevino, Gary Player, Ken Venturi, Billy Casper, Raymond Floyd, Julius Boros, Roberto De Vicenzo, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Seve, Crenshaw, Langer, Hale Irwin. Even Hogan and Snead could still play a bit at the tail end of their careers. Nicklaus had to beat a guy like David Graham who was not as applauded as some of the others I have mentioned here, but could go out and hit every fairway and every green on Sunday at a US Open and win it.
Now I am sure the governing body of the game will certainly lower the standard for the golf “Hall of Fame” in years to come to help juice the promotion machine… but I am sorry… today’s players don’t have the depth of legends to deal with on a weekly basis. Not even close.
It doesn’t surprise me a bit to see the best players in the world coming out of Ireland. At least growing up there you have to deal with a bit of adverse conditions, high winds and tricky courses. I don’t see the next hall of famer coming off a perfectly groomed American driving range or pristine golf practice facility.
Funny,
Rory is waiting for a British Open to play in that doesn’t have wind.
Likes playing the US more because of less wind.
Plays a high ball…that wee lad.
Does john’s arguments cut both ways?
Could a post accident hogan handle the power game required to survive on tour these days?? Even the most passionate Hogan fan would concede he struggled on the greens towards the end of his career. Instead of slow rolling greens could he have handled greens stimping at 12?
Not sure about how he’d do in the power game but anyone who thinks slower bumpy greens are easier to putt than smooth greens stimping at 12 or 13 hasn’t putted on slow-bumpy greens. If you putt on super fast greens enough (as today’s tour players do) they become MUCH easier to putt than what the average muni-player putts on. 3 and 4 footers are significantly easier on smooth fast greens cause you don’t have to move the putter much, and the same applies to 30 footers as well. I play most of my golf on the slower “less-smooth” stuff and I frequently I struggle on super fast greens in bigger events only because I’m not used to the speed change. I usually get comfortable too late but I’m always quite jealous I don’t get to putt on that stuff all the time. In fact I almost always see the “country-clubbers” who are used to really good to excellent greens struggle in those events that are played on green conditions I’m more familiar with. (Similar I think to the pro’s that struggle on poa-anna).
No doubt in my mind today’s pro’s wouldn’t make near the number of longer putts (hell, even mid-length putts for that matter) on the surfaces that were considered to be “quality” in the 70’s/80’s.
I think Hogan would have done very well in any era. I think he hit it atleast 270 with wood woods and balatas, so i think he would be just as long or longer than Rory or Tiger, but much straighter obviously. From old videos ive seen Hogan had a terrible putting stroke so he would probably have to improve that and get used to the fast greens. But i dont think he would have had any problem with the power game, because i think he would be as long or longer than most top players, and much straighter.
For a good player, putting on pure, fast greens is SO much easier than putting on slower, bumpier greens. Think about it. You don’t have to make as much of a stroke and all you have to do is get it started on line and it’s in the back of the cup. Do you really think that the guys on TV would make as many putts if they were playing on local muni’s greens? Umm no…
Now this is different when you start having green complexes that weren’t designed to have greens running 11-12 but that’s a completely different story.
Crap greens make the game more of a ball strikers game. Today I played the beautiful Lincoln Park GC in San Francisco. Windy, and lots of suspect lies even from the fairways, and no level lies. The greens are like putting on Austin Powers shag carpet. But if you just keep hitting it close… over and over… you will make a few. Four birdies, three kick ins and a chip in. I don’t think I made a putt outside 6 feet all day. But I walked off the course with a 69. Not my best score there… but had I driven the ball a little better and had few putts gone in, it could have been a lot better. If I pick up every time I was inside 10 feet for a gimmie, I would have shot 63.
Bad greens are the same for everyone, and it just motivates me to hit the ball better with the irons.
Again I agree with a considerable amount of your points, but it’s gone off into an argument about the modern vs the classic game, with a lot of points too general and fair to contest.
Rory didn’t miss from inside 10 feet, which is incredible. But you’ve taken it to be standard practice, and argued accordingly, when it’s not even close to standard. Guys miss putts all the time, as does Rory, he just had a phenomenal week- why can’t that be applauded instead of ripped as an example of how easy the game is? Fast, sloping greens with wind whipping around his ankles, and he doesn’t miss from inside 10 feet?! And somehow this is bad? I’m not seeing it. I’d argue that where modern players have gained in terms of green condition, they’ve lost in terms of slope, break, and speed. When greens are hairy and slow, there’s no fear in them, on any putt. In a lot of ways the modern guys have to be more accurate because being above pins can leave you with nothing. Older courses have a general pitch to each green, making them a fair bit easier to read than the modern tiered affairs(not that I’m a huge fan of them) If you add in a much slower pace too, then putts can get quite easy to knock in with a bit extra speed- from all around the hole.
You’re not going to get an argument from me that the game has been undermined by modern equipment and by the amounts of money available, both on and off the course. But to write off great golf by great golfers, just because they’re from now, is missing something I think.
Why do you think that is?