Imagine Bobby Jones with a Titanium Driver

[PEZGolf]

This has been a good debate, and YouTube should be embarrassed. Now, let me throw another name out there---Harry Vardon---not just because he holds the record for most Open Championships (six), and also won one United States Open (and lost in the famous playoff with Francis Ouimet in 1913), but also because he was the ultimate shotmaker. When the Spaulding Company brought him to the "States" to put on a series of exhibitions, people marvelled at the various types of shots he could hit---draw or fade, high or low, half shots or full, etc. And he played in the days before Sarazen invented the sand wedge, and they still played stymies on the greens!!

One additional note: Vardon, of course, was one of the members of The Great Triumvirate with James Braid and JH Taylor. Each of those two won 5 Open Championships, so the Great Three won 16 in total! Talk about domination.

Vardon played in three US Opens, and won in 1900, and was runner up in 1913 and 1920. What other golfer can claim a record like that in a Major?

Also, he won 14 tournaments in a row, which eclipses the PGA Tour record of Lord Byron (which is 11).

[Lemay427]

This has been a good debate, and YouTube should be embarrassed. Now, let me throw another name out there---Harry Vardon---not just because he holds the record for most Open Championships (six), and also won one United States Open (and lost in the famous playoff with Francis Ouimet in 1913), but also because he was the ultimate shotmaker. When the Spaulding Company brought him to the "States" to put on a series of exhibitions, people marvelled at the various types of shots he could hit---draw or fade, high or low, half shots or full, etc. And he played in the days before Sarazen invented the sand wedge, and they still played stymies on the greens!!

How many golfers were there in 1900 vs. today? With more people comes greater competition.

[wachesawgolfer]

Yes, I absolutely agree. The better equipment puts more people into the mix.

But, if you ponder it further, it is all still relative, its not as if only the poorer players can avail themselves to the better gear. So, in a sense, the poor will play better but so will the best.

[iacas]

But, if you ponder it further, it is all still relative, its not as if only the poorer players can avail themselves to the better gear. So, in a sense, the poor will play better but so will the best.

That's not quite how it works, no. Better equipment has a leveling effect that brings the bottom up quite a bit more than it raises those at the top.

[PEZGolf]

How many golfers were there in 1900 vs. today? With more people comes greater competition.

I agree with you on that point. Nonetheless, we have to respect those who were Champions in their day. For example, if Babe Ruth played baseball today or Red Grange played in the NFL, does any of us think they would still be as great as they were in their eras? Probably not, but they were the greatest of their time, and they deserve respect for that achievement.

[lumpuckeroo]

I agree with you on that point. Nonetheless, we have to respect those who were Champions in their day. For example, if Babe Ruth played baseball today or Red Grange played in the NFL, does any of us think they would still be as great as they were in their eras? Probably not, but they were the greatest of their time, and they deserve respect for that achievement.

I disagree, I think the cream rises to the top, if they were the greatest of their time, they would have been great in anytime.

I don't believe the Babe Ruth of 1927 could have hit 60 home runs in 2007, but if Babe were born in 1975 instead of 1895, we would be talking about Babe Ruth not A-Rod or Bonds.

[PEZGolf]

I disagree, I think the cream rises to the top, if they were the greatest of their time, they would have been great in anytime.

Getting back to the subject of Bobby Jones, equipment, etc., I have a comment: one great feature of Mr. Jones was his popularity. He was handsome, well-spoken, and photogenic. That is one reason the classic short instructional films were done with him and movie stars like W.C. Fields, etc. Golf was still a game to be played by the wealthy, but ordinary people could still root for a popular figure like Jones. How many athletes have been given one of the famous ticker tape parades through Manhattan, as Jones was for winning the Grand Slam? Ruth had the same effect with baseball as he revolutionized the game. Prior to his conversion to the outfield from the pitchers' mound, golf was a game of hitting singles, stealing bases, bunting, etc. Ruth brought power and the home run, and that electrified the fans. Both Jones and Ruth will forever be remembered for being so popular that they transcended their game or sport and became national heroes. As we all know, they were key figures in the "Golden Age of Sport".

[jorruss]

I don't believe the Babe Ruth of 1927 could have hit 60 home runs in 2007, but if Babe were born in 1975 instead of 1895, we would be talking about Babe Ruth not A-Rod or Bonds.

Sure he could have, if he brought the pitchers from 1927 with him

Remember, we are also in the so-called "live ball" era...

[lumpuckeroo]

Sure he could have, if he brought the pitchers from 1927 with him

That's what makes these kind of topics so debatable and fun to discuss. Pitchers today throw a lot more kinds of pitches then the pitchers of 1927 also, helps negate the "live ball"

. My belief is that regardless of era, an exceptional person is an exceptional person, be it an athlete, a business man, a scientist or a teacher. I believe Tiger and Jack would still be great golfers if they were playing hickory shafted clubs and gutta balls, just like Bobby Jones would be a great golfer if he was playing titanium. The Indian would learn how to make the best from the arrow.

[niblick]

Hogan would have flat out killed the ball with a modern driver.

[shortstop20]

Hogan would have flat out killed the ball with a modern driver.

I would have to agree. I'm as big of a Tiger fan as anybody but I truly believe Hogan could give him a run for his money(pre-crash).

If I could meet any golfer it would be Hogan, not many 22 year old's would say that.

[PEZGolf]

I would have to agree. I'm as big of a Tiger fan as anybody but I truly believe Hogan could give him a run for his money(pre-crash).

You are right, not many 22 year olds would say that. It shows that you have an appreciation for one of the truly "Greats of Golf". Even the true stories about him make him legendary.

[Marinemike]

I also have an immense respect for Hogan although I check in at 27.

We all know how the greats would handle modern equipment, but I think the real question is how they would handle modern trousers! I still only have a vague idea of the location when Ben Hogan references the watch pocket in his book.

[Awsi Dooger]

I don't know if this is true, but I heard some pros talking about something and I am fairly sure it involved Brandt Snedeker. Snedeker supposedly used some vintage equipment (persimmon driver, tiny blade irons, older style balls (don't ask how he may have gotten those, I cannot imagine a preserved balata ball still being any good, so maybe it was just balls from a few years back) and tried a round -- could not break 80.

That so-called test was laughably irrelevant. I can't believe the hype it managed. The writer had a theory and an agenda going in, and shaped the story along those lines.

Naturally a player will fare worse, much worse, if he's suddenly using foreign and radically different equipment for a round or two or ten. The only valid examination would have been months of preparation, if not longer. The issue is absurdly overhyped, IMO. I've walked tour events since I was a kid in the late '60s. There is no difference in iron play. Nor putting. Chipping is more advanced and produces fewer poor results than the old bump and runs with 6 through 8 irons. Only in recent years has the driving distance improved significantly, noticeably higher ball flight and longer carry. The '60s and '70s persimmon tee shots were incredibly powerful strikes but looked like jet trails, rising in the distance. Then they dropped with only moderate roll. Still, I've walked Doral dozens of rounds and the big hitters like Nicklaus and Weiskopf destroyed the ball, atypical ball flight for their era and quite similar to today. Anyone who thinks they bunted the ball is comically attached to the simpleton theory of modern as superior. Every time I receive an email update of a new post on that Tiger vs. Jack thread, it's guaranteed to have the same theme, "Jack wasn't good enough, strong enough," something like that. I can't say it's surprising. If someone in the '70s had touted '20s-'40s era players I would have laughed off the old guy. Only after witnessing decade after decade did I understand how equal the eras remain, in virtually every sport particularly at the absolute top. Funny how it's chic to claim Secretariat, a '73 horse, as best ever, but anyone else from that time frame is shuttled away as inferior to modern advances. And newsflash: Secretariat ran on concrete tracks in '73. Belmont was incredibly fast all year. The track record was broken in the race preceding Secretariat's Belmont. All the Triple Crown tracks were astonishingly swift in '73. That's the type of thing that makes era to era relationships so difficult, because the foundational factors are not immediately obvious. You can't grasp them decades later from history books or grainy YouTube clips. Not everything translates, if you weren't there following it in real time with all variables available. Am I seriously supposed to know how good Bobby Jones was? No thank you. The Nicklaus-era players were more determined and clutch. I don't see how that can be disputed, not seriously by anyone who had equal opportunity to witness that era compared to today. The depth may not have been there but the premium players would scratch for every victory and come up big on the weekend, regardless if Jack or Arnold or Gary or Tom were in contention. In fact, they would raise their game to the challenge. In the Tiger era it's exactly the opposite. I can count on the other top guns to wilt if he's thrown his name up there after 36 holes. Any goof can supply a handful of exceptions. In total it's a fearful drift, off the leaderboard and no more pressure. That's why I hated that Duval always had poor mechanics that seemed destined not to hold up for a long career. He was the one top guy who seemed unfazed by Tiger and willing to stand up to him. Even in the 2000 British Open, weeks after Tiger at his absolute peak waltzed by 15 at Pebble Beach, Duval started the final round in terrific form playing alongside Tiger and kept it within a few shots until disaster in one of the famous pot bunkers. Anyway, in general it's an overstated topic. I wish we could go back and read articles from every few years, each claiming the new equipment makes all the difference. They were out there. No era wants to dismiss the current offerings of the time, any more than a politician will say, "This election is basically meaningless. We're just hanging around until the next generation faces the grave issues of 20 years from now." Talent obliterates equipment just like a better swing is more necessary to better results than buying the latest and greatest. On the amateur level the new equipment is much less helpful than is asserted. My friends routinely get fitted and shell out $300 to $500 for the latest jumbo driver and then slice it, 180-220 like always. I wish I could wager on this topic, a controlled study with legit criteria and conditions. Give me the under, thank you. It reminds me of the typical Joe Blow bar stool hoopla, "If he played in Fenway with that short right porch he'd hit 60 home runs." Meanwhile, the over/under is 38, up from 35 at the current park. Fans thrill to exaggerate. It's the reason shows like PTI are successful, high decibel exaggeration on every topic every day. Please don't wager if you are the hyperbole type.

[Trav]

Recent article about results of Chad Campbell using older equipment, including chart:

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/...tance_stachura

Note the increase in swing speed, partly (mostly?) attributable to use of lighter equipment.

[PEZGolf]

Recent article about results of Chad Campbell using older equipment, including chart:

It is interesting that this discussion is going on here at this forum, when John Paul Newport, in his weekly golf column in the "Wall Street Journal", just wrote about the same subject. This was in the issue for Saturday, May 30th. He played with balata balls and a persimmon driver, and his conclusions are the same as other tests:

1. You lose 30 yards or more on each drive. 2. The old equipment kept the ball in the fairway much more consistently. 3. His score stayed about the same. 4. He was able to work the ball better in different ball flights with the old equipment. 5. Scoring still comes down to the short game and putting. The old phrase "Drive for show, and putt for dough" still applies, no matter how new the player's equipment is.

[shortstop20]

2. The old equipment kept the ball in the fairway much more consistently.

What is the reason for that?

[Trav]

The WSJ author said because his ball was shorter, moderately offline shots did not travel far enough to get into trouble as often.

The Campbell results were the subject of a weekly local radio show on golf by a well-known knowledgeable store owner. He said (loosely remembered) that balata balls begin to lose some of their distance after a year or so in storage as the rubber inside the ball begins to lose its elasticity much the same way that stretched rubber bands lose their stretch over time, and thus that it is very hard to accurately measure/compare balata (which is not being made anymore) with new balls.