• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
boil3rmak3r

Who do you think is the best ball striker of all time? Why?

31 posts in this topic

I am biased toward Hogan as I've studied him a bit.  He wasn't a big guy (5'8" 145 lbs), but could hit the ball a long way.  He once won 3 tournaments in a row and hit a combined 214 of 216 GIR's in those 3 tournaments.  Has anyone else in history done this?

I've seen replays of the matchup between him and Snead in the 60's on Shell's Wonderful World of Golf.  Hogan made it look so easy hitting 14 of 14 fairways and 18 of 18 greens en route to beating Snead.  After the round, Snead played it off by saying that Hogan actually practiced for the match while Snead just looked at it as a casual round.  I thought that was funny...

If Hogan would have been a better putter (nothing to do with ball striking) and if he didn't have his horrific automobile accident, who knows how much more he could have accomplished...

I hear people claim that Tiger is the best ball striker.  I think that's laughable.  He may very well be ther best all around golfer of all time, but definitlely not the best ball striker.  Give him 1950's equipment and his shot dispersions would be even worse than they are now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I loved the way Greg Norman swung the club, I don't know if he was the greatest ball stiker of all time but I loved the way he just went for it. That swing was totally balls out and kitchen sink. A bit OT but in Australia he was a god, he played sport like we think sport should be played.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define what you mean by "ball striker".  Nicklaus won 17 Majors and 72 Tournaments.  He had to be one of the best.  Snead won the most tournaments. He had to be great.  Maybe if we could find the stats for all time fairway and GIR, we could see who was the best in those terms.  Tiger is pretty good too considering his 14 Majors and 74 Tournaments.  If you include all short game shots, then really, really good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

His shot dispersions would be a lot better. Mainly because the ball would be flying 50+ yards shorter.

You would have to define what you mean by "best". When he was on, Johnny Miller was crazy good with his approach irons for example. But that on period wasn't super long. Mac O'Grady also did some crazy ball striking (to go along with being insane ). And of course there is always Moe Norman.

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

I hear people claim that Tiger is the best ball striker.  I think that's laughable.  He may very well be ther best all around golfer of all time, but definitlely not the best ball striker.  Give him 1950's equipment and his shot dispersions would be even worse than they are now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting Hogan, no shock there.  Many of the books I've read claim Hogan would have set many more golf records had he; not lost so many years to the war, become seriously injured in a car accident and spent more time working with his putter.  I can only imagine how good a ball striker he would be with the equipment they use today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Mo Norman. He was like a machine when hitting the ball. Same way every time, no practice swings, just smooth stroke and he could put the ball where he wanted it to go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm voting Hogan, no shock there.  Many of the books I've read claim Hogan would have set many more golf records had he; not lost so many years to the war, become seriously injured in a car accident and spent more time working with his putter.  I can only imagine how good a ball striker he would be with the equipment they use today.

I just wish there was better video of the players from that generation.  We know they were good, but just imaging how cool it would be to see them in HD.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The good news is that Hogan wrote a book with excellent illustrations.

I won't comment on who the best ball striker ever was.  In the same way that it isn't fair to compare today's great team sport athletes to the greats of generations past, the game is ever changing.

It isn't fair to compare players that never played directly against each other.  Norman, Nicklaus, Snead, Hogan, Hagen, Casper, etc.  were ALL great golfers.  Just as Mickelson, Woods, etc. are great golfers today.

The point that I am trying to make is that Ben Hogan was in my opinion the best student of the game, he broke down the swing the first time when nobody else did, he wrote a book that years later (today) is still recommended as an excellent way to learn the proper way to swing a golf club.  So he might not have had the natural talent that Bubba Watson (never taken a lesson) has, but he made up for it with a GREAT work ethic, and a fundamental understanding of how to create great golf shots.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobby Locke was undoubtedly one of the finest strikers and indeed golfers. He was unorthodox, in that he hooked every shot about 50 yards in the air. When he won the Open Championship at St. Andrews in 1957, he aimed at Tom Morris's shop at the 18th, WAY to the right of target, and put the ball to 12 inches!

A South African,  he was leading money winner in the USA on the PGA tour in 1947, so the American pros got together and had him banned!!!!  He then  decided to play in Britain, and he won countless tournaments including FOUR British Open Championships.  I saw him give an exhibition once, and he proved he could hit absolutely any shot----high fade, low fade, high hook, low hook, or straight shot! He was an absolute magician.

He has been forgotten in America, because of the jealousy of the American pros, who did not like him taking what they considered to be "their" money!!  After he left the USA, he invited Sam Snead to play in South Africa, and they played 18 matches against each other.  Locke won 17, and the other one was halved!!

Close behind Locke  would be Peter Thomson, then Lee Trevino, Dai Rees, Jack NIcklaus and Peter Alliss.   However, I have to say that the absolutely BEST striker I have ever seen (and I played in several British Opens, as well as British, French and other European Amateur Championships) was a man few have heard of----T.H.T. (Tom) Fairbairn, an English pro who won many British tourneys in the 1950s and 1960s.  He was simply unbelievably good, and no description can convey the sound of a drive or long iron shot of his----"crisp" does not begin to sum it up. Every single shot seemed to come out of the exact sweet spot, and iron shots never showed a trace of being mishit or misaligned. I think there have been many golfers who have been exceptional strikers, producing wondrous ball flights, but of whom we have never heard because they were not necessarily successful competitively, for whatever reason.  Some simply couldn't be bothered, and some just did not like competition. I played several rounds with a young man in Germany who hit fabulous, towering, drawing fairway woods, and one irons, and hardly ever hit a poor shot, but who was so dedicated to his profession,  he gave up golf at an early age!!  Many are the reasons for lack of competitive success,  especially in the past. When I was good enough to be a pro in the late 1950s and the 1960s, there was absolutely NO money in pro golf, and anyone with a professional career (I'm a retired doctor) didn't even consider being a pro. Indeed, turning pro was rather akin to becoming a street sweeper in Britain, at least!!  Even in the US, little money was made, except by the most successful, like Casper, Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Weiskopf et al.  As Arnie has pointed out, in those days, you had to win, and win often, to make a good living---the also-rans were poor!

Nowadays, any player on the PGA or European Tour is rich, without ever having to win a tournament, far less the multiple wins of the likes of Palmer and co.

Sorry to ramble on, but I'm reminiscing, as we're currently snow-bound here, near the highest town in Britain-----hope I haven't bored you guys too much, and let's hope for a good summer!!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

I hear people claim that Tiger is the best ball striker.  I think that's laughable.  He may very well be ther best all around golfer of all time, but definitlely not the best ball striker.  Give him 1950's equipment and his shot dispersions would be even worse than they are now.

I am not so sure you are right about this. In 1998-2000 Tiger was a really good ballstriker. He was an outstanding driver of the ball, very long and very accurate. He also went after a lot of flags. This means when he missed he may have missed the green but it was because he was firing at flags. GIR is not always the best of stats to look at.

I just find it hard to believe that someone who won the US Open by 15 shots was not an awesome ballstriker.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I agree. Hunter has the complete ball striking skill set that is rarely seen on tour.

I am sure if we had everyone of Hogan's (or anyone really) rounds on tape, we could also find some lovely shots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Hunter Mahan

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by HighlandLaird

As Arnie has pointed out, in those days, you had to win, and win often, to make a good living---the also-rans were poor!

Nowadays, any player on the PGA or European Tour is rich, without ever having to win a tournament, far less the multiple wins of the likes of Palmer and co.

IMO there is also a lot more competition now to get that level than there was in those days. I think one of the reasons that there was a select group back then that dominated was because the fields did not have the depth of talent that exists now. A lot of athletes consider golf a possible avenue for professional competition which I am not sure was true back then.

I am not sure about all time but all of the analysts seem to agree that Westwood is one of the best ball strikers on tour and has been for a decade so maybe he should be considered?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the guys from history were much better ball strikers. They simply had to be, balata balls and old fashioned blades and persimmon heads, sweet spots were way way smaller compared to the oversize metal drivers and even the latest types of blades.

If you missed the sweet spot the ball wasn't going anywhere, the clubs and balls are so much more forgiving now - though not if you use the hosel!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moe Norman.  End of thread. :-D

There was a recent thread asking why more people haven't tried to emulate Moe. As well as Norman struck the ball, it is interesting that we haven't seen more professionals who modeled their swing like him...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

I suspect that the guys from history were much better ball strikers. They simply had to be, balata balls and old fashioned blades and persimmon heads, sweet spots were way way smaller compared to the oversize metal drivers and even the latest types of blades.

If you missed the sweet spot the ball wasn't going anywhere, the clubs and balls are so much more forgiving now - though not if you use the hosel!

correct me if I am wrong, but as the equipment has changed, so to have the courses and the scores correct?  I am fairly certain that is the case for amateurs.  Pros it might be slightly less noticeable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your argument, but Hogan played blades where as today a good percentage of pro's use GI irons (Ping G series, cavity backs, etc)  Even the muscle backs of today are more forgiving than the blades of Hogan's era.  Eliminating distance from the equation, I don't think many will dispute that hybrids and more forgiving irons have made it easier for the pro's today to be good ball strikers.

Originally Posted by clearwaterms

correct me if I am wrong, but as the equipment has changed, so to have the courses and the scores correct?  I am fairly certain that is the case for amateurs.  Pros it might be slightly less noticeable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • 2016 TST Initiative: Forward Tees Tournament
      In Lowest Score Wins, we recommend that golfers play from the forward tees in order to experience "breaking 80" for the first time, or shooting 65, or having more birdie putts than they've ever had, or whatever. This year, in 2016, we're taking it one step farther: we're encouraging everyone here to work with the head pro at your home course (or, if you play multiple courses, the head pro at each of them!) and to set up a serious "Forward Tees Tournament." A Forward Tees Tournament (FTT) will be: FUN! Enlightening Unique Challenging I'll give anyone who creates and/or participates in a FTT this year the special achievement/award seen to the left. Anyone with this award will be entered to win a TST prize to be determined at the end of the year (and I'll do my best to make it a fairly good prize, but that shouldn't be the main reason why anyone should do this). You can play: With or without handicaps. With or without brackets/divisions/flights. Stroke play or match play. 18, 27, 36, 54+ holes. One day, two days, three days. Etc. I think golfers will love playing in this type of tournament. I think it will challenge them to think about how they play and score. I think it will result in faster play, more fun, more birdies, more chances to hit 7-iron into par fives and feel like a Tour player for once, and… lower scores (or higher scores for the dumb players!). So there you have it. What can you do from here? Pledge here in this thread to talk to your head pro. Recruit your buddies and local golfers to play in your event. Work with your head pro to make the event a success. Play in the event! Post here after your tournament has been played to claim your super-exclusive award/achievement! I'm in. I'll be doing this, hopefully at multiple courses this year. Are you?
    • Posting old scores
      I haven't had an official handicap for about 15 years because in the past several I've only been able to play 6-8 times per year. This year I joined a club so that I could play in tournaments and since I need five scores to get a handicap, I entered some scores in GHIN from my last few rounds in 2015 (since I play so rarely, I can remember them). When I was doing this, I forgot to change the date when posting a score from August so it defaulted to today and is now my most recent reported score. GHIN won't let me change the entry but says to "contact my club" to fix it, which seems like a hassle for everyone involved. It's not my lowest score but it's close, so it will probably be included in my handicap calculation for quite a while unless the date is changed. How big of a deal is this?
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Another thing is sometimes to 'give up' on par. For example, as a bogey golfer, if I hit a bad tee shot and end up say 220yds from the hold on a par 4 rather than the usual 130yds, play the hole as if bogey is the new par. You've made the hole more difficult for yourself and rather than trying to hit the green with a 3 wood (a green designed to be hit with a mid/short iron), take 2 shots to get on the green and 2 shots to get down. 1 220yd par 4 is an easy hole (could even make birdie (which becomes par and a great save) whereas a 220 yd par 3, not off the tee, is asking for trouble. Not always the best way to play golf (read Lowest Score Wins) but the best way to avoid blowing up.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Find it yourself please. I don't think that would provide much insight. Courses, technology… all very different. Too many differences. People who qualify for the Opens rarely actually compete for them. The winners and top finishers almost always come from those who qualify automatically. I'm not. Very few foreign golfers played on the PGA Tour in the 60s. It's been steadily growing - and travel has made it easier, too - through to now. And even now we're starting to see Asian golfers really take over. The only Asian golfer many could name who competed against Nicklaus was Isao Aoki. Maybe Jumbo Ozaki. I'm just talking about the number of golfers. There are a ton more now. I don't care. I realize perhaps your condition forces you to take everything literally, but I wasn't being literal here. The PGA Tour takes the best 150 players or so out of X. As X grows, the amount of separation between those top 150 players narrows. We're in a very narrow phase right now. When Jack was playing, the gap was significantly wider. No. Tiger was quite a bit more dominant and "above" even MORE highly competitive fields. Both halves of that are true: Tiger won by larger margins and against stronger fields. I agree. And I've said similar things. No…? You don't say? (On page 273 of a thread doing just that…)? You seem to be the only person who regards WGCs as weaker fields that offer a "competitive break." It says a lot about how others should consider your opinions on strength of field. You're assuming or haven't read many of my posts in this thread, because I've said several times that I'd put it within a few points of 50/50. Maybe 55/45. Hardly what I'd call "strong." Of course we're both "estimating." Tiger's record, IMO, against significantly stiffer competition, puts him ahead. Not by a lot. Not really. If only 30 players had a realistic chance to win a tournament, adding players beyond that 30th player does little to affect the strength of the field. The WGCs could add 200 club professionals that would never win and… the strength of field would remain exactly the same. Where have I said this? Because even if I did, it doesn't support whatever you're trying to force it into supporting here. The odds of a club pro beating anyone on the PGA Tour these days are slim to none. They were slightly more likely back when fewer "A" players played the PGA Tour… like in the 60s and 70s. A "C" player's game almost never varies enough - not for four days - to beat even 10 or 15 "A" players. Here's an opinion, but one I could probably back up if I cared enough to take the time (I do not): a modern WGC has a stronger field than many (perhaps all) of the majors Nicklaus won. I've said this before, and will say it again here: In Jack's day, there were maybe 10-15 "A" players, 25 "B" players, and the rest were "C" players. Today there are 100+ A players and the rest B players. I'm also going to request, mostly because of the number of times I've had to repeat myself in this thread, that you not quote or respond to me, @natureboy, in this thread. I'm not keen on repeating myself about something that, ultimately, I don't care that much about. It is what it is, their records are what they are, and they could only beat the guys they played against.
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Never try to hit through trees, always just get back to the fairway.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries