Wildcatfan

Irresolvable issue--which is what makes this fun I suppose. But: Snead had the best swing--a matter about which there seems little controversy. Hogan was the most consistent ball-striker--again not a matter about which there is much controversy. Nelson surely had the greatest attitude to win (and, remember, he retired at 34). Best putter: a little more open, but you would have to consider Bobby Locke. Around the green, pretty hard to say. Sand traps: again hard to say. Best athlete: Snead's athletic skills were simply beyond anything anyone can achieve by training. Best playing hurt: Hogan by a mile. So now we turn to Jack and Tiger. By the time Jack reached Turnberry he was playing in tournaments only occasionally but with great intensity . . . still his interest in other golfish type things lessened his numbers. I suspect he could have passed Snead--but he didn't, so suspicions do not count. In terms of effort and commitment to tournament play Tiger and Hogan seem to be tied--at least in my head. The problem with all these comparisons is this: when the World War II generation was playing the prize monies were so low that they HAD to play relentlessly. Hogan once played an entire tournament on fruit grown locally because he could not afford. The physical toll eliminated great golfers who could not stand the grind. So the competitive field was different. Golf before the TV era was a war of attrition and those who lasted trained relentlessly if informally. It made some players great through relentless pressure. The rest it killed. Almost no one was coached from childhood to become a pro . . . which is certainly not the case today. Could Jack and Tiger have been Jack and Tiger if they had to play under the conditions of that one generation of greats. It is hard to see Tiger's body taking the immense physical strain of that era. Jack is a little harder to judge. He could have very easily, like Nelson, simply turned his attention to something less stressful and more rewarding.

As a statistician I keep track of what I and my playing companions do on a course. The most important stat (outside of putting) is, I think, the FIR. How many hackers can wrestle balls out of roughs consistently without cheating? Then, if over a thousand rounds of golf, with considerable data collection, tell us anything, the number a hacker should shoot for is GIR + 1. That is, a hacker should attempt to avoid bunkers and such even he/she clubs down considerably. Drives are nightmares, but hitting a soft cut helps the FIR number. Then, not too surprisingly, is the lag putt. Some of my friends charge the hole relentlessly but as Snead said--a golf hole has four doors, when you hit a putt to just get to the hole, you can use all four doors . . . which worked for him until the yips took over. Marking where my companions put their lags, it is clear that they rarely actually drop a long putt--although many of their efforts are heroic--and they leave themselves with a lot of 6-12 footers. Finally, I agree with John Daly--although I do not have the stats to prove it--practice 3-4 footers relentlessly.

I agree that Trevino's advice takes the sap out of the game and, if you are the average hacker, you probably will hit only a few of those 100-yard approaches to the green on the green. Hence, you are really playing for double-bogie with the occasional bogey or par . . . but more likely the occasional triple or quadruple. Still, Trevino does have a point. As a hacker myself (19 index) I play some holes strategically, knowing that I can hit my 2 or 3-hybrid reasonable accurately and that I have a fairly reliable fade (I hit draws and hooks if I just swing away) if I want to go to the driver. If you are on a tough course, there is nothing wrong with going with the shorter clubs. It is a matter of thinking the course through and not just swinging away. Very tough courses can be brought close to a 100 if you out-patient the course. On the other hand, letting out shaft on a 470-yd hole and actually getting it is a peak experience.