This one is Range Rat’s idea from the Swing Sequences thread.
He loves them logos.
RR, is there anything to be learned from the Pringle Man logo from the early 90’s??
… diamonds are not forever?
NRG: So that’s what Small World is 
I was searching the web for a golf site named small world. Duh!! Gosh, what can I say. Have never seen the Pringle Man but I’m sure the corporation is hiding deep, dark secrets within its structure. If they are I can find it. Maybe you could post one. But as long as you brought up potatoe chips, anyone ever swung a club with a chip between their front teeth to see how much tension there is within their motion. Broken chip= tension
RR,
Meet Pringle Man.
What secrets does he hold??
NRG
NRG: Ya gotta love it. The picture is a little fuzzy on my end- looks like that white thing could be a golf club? I’ll report back later after my undercover investigation is completed.
1 Like
Great pictures again BomGolf222. I have never seen Hogan and Snead presented that way. Brings this quote to mind, hope it’s not too far off track…
“Since philosophic depth is an art rather than a science, it is ever for the few. Beyond Heraclitus there can be no progress, only difference, just as poetry cannot surpass but at best equal Shakespeare.” …PQ Wall
I saw this and thought…that’s what I wonder about Hogan, Snead (and possibly the other greats).
While golf is not poetry or philosophy, it may be somewhere in between or close by… or a mixture of, science,poetry, and philosophy…or as one author wrote, it is “pure theater”. It often is a physical/emotional/intellectual/mystical experience…for the player and the observer.
So if PQ is right, a good question may be: Can anyone surpass Hogan( or other greats) ? Is Hogan to golf as Shakespeare is to poetry?
You’re speaking my language, Eagle… great stuff… I don’t have a short response to those types of thoughts or questions so I’ll get to it later…
Cheers…
It’s not like Willie was the only poet ever, I’ll take Shelley or Milton anyday for pleasure reading. As far as golf goes I personally put Jones and Nelson on the same plateau. Maybe the mechanics are a little different (mostly because of the torque of hickory) but they deserve the same consideration. Rememeber Hogan only flattened out once he could get a stiff heavy steel shaft without a lot of torque in it, before that he was almost as upright as Nelson and struggled where Byron dominated.
I hear you. I’m a very high handicapper when it comes to judging poetry myself, so those are just the late PQ’s views about Willie.
But I thought the concept was interesting…the “can equal but not surpass” concept.
And I agree…it is also open for debate who all belongs on the “top shelf” (as Lag says) of golf…I’m sure there are at least several up there.
And also the “ever for the few” concept is intriguing…
So far , statistics show that the distribution of handicaps has not changed much over the decades…despite all efforts thus far. If it were otherwise, I suppose it would not be so mysterious or attractive.
To me, this question goes to the heart of the evolutionary debate. Unless we’ve witnessed some amount of evolution in our species then I think the best of each generation is no better or worse than eachother. And that’s not to say that we haven’t. The best of the best maximize their potential with whatever recourses they have at their disposal. The depth of field is the real change I think, and this can be attributed to simple population increase, and the increase in access to opportunity. And that in itself does have an impact on the standard at the top since competition does tend to drive progress.
The environment into which babies are born has changed dramatically in the last 50, 100, 150, 200 years, not to mention the rest. With the advancements in technology and industry in the last 200 years I’d say without question that the world has changed more in that time than it did from the start of time up to that point. But the same babies are still being born. How they’re developing because of the world they’re interpreting may at some point have an evolutionary impact if that’s how you think, but I’m not sure that we can see that with our eyes. It could be argued that Tiger was some sort of evolutionary step, and in golfing terms, I would say he is- and maybe in the species too, who knows. He took fear out of the game and opened the eyes of the following generation to a game that didn’t have to be feared- two footers, lob shots, water, long holes, none of it seems to intimidate him. Kids developing as golfers looking at that way of playing the game, experience and learn it in a much different way than most of us here probably did.
The attitude that has come with the change in technology has had as much of an impact on the game as has the technology itself. Kind of like when the first settlers came to America- the Natives may have been the finest marksmen with their bow and arrow, but when you’re facing a guy with a shotgun who has the attitude to go with it, by and large, there’s only going to be one winner. So you go get yourself a gun. Tiger had that attitude before technology so that’s another example of how he’s gotten screwed.
There’s a comparison in music which, ironically, makes comparisons kind of pointless. Music, and art in general can be seen as a distillation of it’s environment. It moves, changes, looks and sounds completely different over time. It’s packaged differently because of the people that will be listening to it. In the last hundred or two hundred years it became less realistic to expect people to listen to a piece of music that takes a few hours to get through. The Beatles did what Mozart or Beethoven did in their times but in a different form. Who’s better? Maybe like with the same question in golf, I don’t think that it’s answerable in any definitive way. But they and their likes are equally timeless because they were truthful and gifted and completely honest to their tasks and created pure forms of their times and environments. I wont listen to popular music anymore, and I haven’t for a long time because it’s a distillation of the soullessness and commercialization that drives it.
I tried to watch the golf yesterday and I was appalled by the pure commercial vehicle that it’s become. Every thought or idea has a title sponsor, and you get to see about 6 shots and then 10 commercials telling us how much we should trust investment companies, or how we should ask our doctors about any number of drugs that none of us need. It was genuinely depressing. Personally I’m equally appalled by that aspect of the new golf as I am by the technology. It makes it un-watchable for me, and I love watching golf.
I can’t resist a good rant, but what has this got to do with the question? I think the game has changed in the same way the world has, and were looking at golfers trying their best with the tools they’ve been given, and we get to see the best of what comes out of that. And if that means getting to watch JB Holmes take 4 minutes to hit a drive 50 yards off line, and a hybrid club from 260 to three feet that stops on a dime, then that’s what it is. It’s sad for sure though. The question is so much affected by environment that comparing players from generations is almost pointless.
People will always look for an edge whether it’s clubs, fitness, or swing technique. If golf had have stayed true to it’s equipment traditions like baseball did, then I’m pretty certain that we’d have a steroids problem and a Mitchell report. And maybe we already do, and should have. People are the problem really. We’re not pure and so the world we create wont be either. Some people are driven more by the decent side of their nature and some people are driven more by the other, and we all have to find our balance in that. It’s important to remember that technology has always changed, Jack played a hi-tech game compared to Jones or Hagen. There are some people who believe that playing with Hickory is the real game and that steel shafts are an abomination. Who are we to pick a point in time and call that real golf?
I very much relate to what you’re saying.
We all have our different ideas of what golf should be. Mickelson doesn’t like the new groove rules because his game is all about bombing it as far as one can and having great skill to get up and down from wherever it finishes.
But ballstrikers of course will be against equipment that makes anyone get results they don’t deserve. Their foremost skill is made redundant.
ABS tends to attract a pretty similar thinking bunch, those who wish to earn their results, not buy them. But pop over to most other forums and you’ll come across people thinking others are stupid for not buying a GPS, having a bag full of hybrids. Or they’ll painfully in need of other people’s opinions as to whether they should upgrade their ''09 Burner to a ''10.
If such gives people enjoyment of the game, then it can only be good. There are two problems however:
-
We have to compete with them if we wish to play in tournaments
-
The existing course can not reconfigured, or at least without great expense, to cater for it all. It is defenseless.
Lag has his solution of having multiple codes of golf. I can’t really picture that happening.
Because minorities are not well catered for. The top players go with the biggest manufacturers. The people go to watch the top players. Sponsors putting up prize money want people.
And for example, if the TRGA did have decent money on the line, the limited Rules would be loophole heaven for the money hunters and slowly the Rule set would have no choice but to grow and resemble today’s Rule book.
Because golf will always be what is has evolved into, and the majority control evolution. Pop music remains popular. It is the majority who support the big manufacturers, paying super inflated prices for equipment that promises to give them ability. The manufacturers get the big dollars, they pay their playing staff and muffle their opinions, they advertise in magazines and get them on side. More money comes in and the cycle continues.
You said it. The saddest part might actually be the invalidation of the classic courses- even more than our enjoyment of the game, that to me is what is tragic. Along with the change in attitude away from fear sort of comes a lack of respect for the game itself. Fear and respect are pretty closely related and both may be in the process of being lost. I do tend to agree with Lag though that a split in the game might be the way to go- it needs to happen sooner rather than later though since the strong voices of yesterday are being nullified more and more. Faldo and Norman for example are both on staff with Taylor Made, and both are vocal in their disdain for the loss of the traditional game- what does that say about our chances? If two of the richest guys the game has produced still feel the need to take even more money from the very people that are destroying the game that they claim to miss, then what is it going to take?
I was talking in another thread about the angles of the feet and their relevance to the body’s ability to align and direct it’s energy so here’s a couple of photos in that regard. The one of LeBron James is just insane! You can imagine that he’s almost frozen in space from the moment of full explosion off the floor to get up that high, and the angles of his feet are so cool to see. Compare them with the other ones and it’s pretty cool. It was doing the warrior pose a few years ago that I first opened my mind up to the power of the rear leg- it went against everything I’d learned about the golf swing, but I couldn’t ignore it…
That LeBaron James photo is steller. Amazing depiction of what the hind leg was just doing.
So this is hurling, a sport I played growing up, It’s one of our two national sports in Ireland. Great game to watch. The guys who play it at the highest level have hand eye coordination like you can’t believe, not to mention how tough they are. When you get hit in the shins and the ankles enough by one of those sticks at full speed the golf course starts looking awfully attractive.
Aiguille mentioned in his great post yesterday about playing around with the bounce of the club, something I’ve played around with a bit too and am pretty fascinated with. As an aside, If you can learn to chip and pitch using the bounce of your wedge to brush the ground while the shaft moves through impact close to perpendicular to the ground(barely leaning- barely! it wants to feel like the head is going, but it’s not flipping, it’s just staying in place like the hands of a clock), then you’ll know what it is to own your short game and stick the ball to the face and then to the ground when it lands. Firm wrists, It’s almost like a big putting stroke. It’s fun. But that’s another story. Btw, perp looking face on, not from DTL- just wanted to clarify!
In this video, check out how the hurley(stick) approaches impact and then goes through it. It’s very interesting and has parallels to using the bounce as well as the rest of the swing. Talk about a deep, low, shallow and open journey into the ball! Not bad forearm rotation either…The speed these guys whip the head through impact is scary too, you can barely see it. Notice also that they play with the rear hand on top- I’ve often wondered if we should be playing golf like that. You also gotta love the advice of “genuflect into the ball”… familiar idea…
This clip might also make some sense out of Jimmy Bruen’s swing for those who know what that looks like… apparently he was a pretty good hurler too…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Ru2L4u0Qk[/youtube]
Hi fellas,
This is a fantastic thread. Really enjoying all the great pix.
Below are some images I’ve collected of the sport of Jai Alai. When I’m hitting the golf ball at my best, it feels like what the Jai Alai motion looks like, ie the ball is stuck on the clubface for the entire swing and is flung off the clubface by the movement of the pivot, not by any flicking of the hands or arms. You couldn’t be effective at Jai Alai unless you pivoted well past the release point.
Cheers,
St Hubbins.
