Golden Oldies, can we still learn from them?

[mvmac]

This makes no sense to me.  No one was a better ball striker than Lee Trevino AND he had an amazing career yet NO ONE is adopting HIS swing.  It doesn't work that way.  The fact is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that someone can use the Moe Norman swing and compete successfully at the highest level.

Yes obviously there are commonalities you can take from great players like Trevino but it doesn't make any sense to COPY someone's swing. Ask the thousands of golfers that tried to mimic Hogan's swing how it worked out for them

[iacas]

I dont belive so, and i think the reason is that no-one (Moe) ever got the chance to pioneer it and get the full PGA tour wins.

Moe had ample opportunity to compete on the PGA Tour.

I believe that we flatter ourselves a bit much by assuming that today's best golfers are better than the best golfers of 30, 40, 50 , or 90 years ago.

I don't. Today's PGA Tour is much, much, much deeper than the fields 30, 50, and definitely 90 years ago. Your next sentence speaks to that… :D

But to take one example, Jack Nicklaus in his prime and compare him to Tiger or Rory, I believe you will find relatively equal levels of talent, but with today's golfers having a major advantage due to the clubs and balls used.  Jack Nicklaus was able to drive the ball 340+ yards using a persimmon driver and wound ball - I do not think many (or any) of today's pros can match that.

This isn't the thread for that, but:

• I agree that they're somewhat comparable. While depth can be fairly well assumed by # of competitors, etc. there's no way to compare the top player because there's no bar higher.
• Jack didn't regularly drive the ball 340.
• Today's equipment benefits the FIELD, thus putting the TOP players at a disadvantage .

Read more here: or .

[Patch]

I am of the opinion that some folks could pick up any printed instruction, and get some good out of it. Other folks could read everything, and not improve. It does not matter how old, or new the print might be. I am also of the opinion that there have been some older teachings that have been updated with with new terminology, and some of those gurus using the newer terminology taking credit for "their" new ideas.

I see Moe Norman has been brought up in the thread. Norman had a swing that perfectly fit him, and his clubs. He said he adjusted his own clubs with a vice, a hammer, and 2X4s to get them to work the way he wanted/needed them to. It has been written that when he was not sleeping, eating, or going to the bathroom, he did nothing but hit golf balls. That in itself is probably why he was such an accurate ball striker. All he did was hit golf balls.  If some PGA players had not made fun of his known shyness, he would have done quite well on the American PGA tour back then. Most likely better than those who ran him off that tour.

Yeah, the old stuff still works, and in some instances would be easier to understand by some of today's individuals wanting to improve their ball striking. That's not to say the new stuff does not work, because it does. I just think golfers would do them selves more good if they looked at both old, and new swing teachings.

[iacas]

I see Moe Norman has been brought up in the thread. Norman had a swing that perfectly fit him, and his clubs. He said he adjusted his own clubs with a vice, a hammer, and 2X4s to get them to work the way he wanted/needed them to. It has been written that when he was not sleeping, eating, or going to the bathroom, he did nothing but hit golf balls. That in itself is probably why he was such an accurate ball striker. All he did was hit golf balls.  If some PGA players had not made fun of his known shyness, he would have done quite well on the American PGA tour back then. Most likely better than those who ran him off that tour.

His swing back then was far, far, FAR more conventional than what many believe is "The Moe Norman golf swing."

[BigBaffy]

Hear, hear!

[mvmac]

Post from @david_wedzik on The Facebook.

[RussUK]

Post from @david_wedzik on The Facebook.

Unlike the trousers!!

[Shorty]

Has any player ever been successful on the PGA Tour with a Norman (Moe, not Greg) type swing?

The people who have a Moe Norman swing are like the ones who think they have a Tiger Woods or Rory McIlroy swing. They don't.

They have their own swing but they may think they are like someone else.

When you see people aping mannerisms like hitching their pants and doing ridiculous lining up routines they may think they look like player X. They don't.

Remember that guy who was uploading videos of himself here with interminable slow motion videos of himself in all the Ben Hogan gear (cap and baggy pants) and era appropriate music?

The clothes looked authentic. Nothing else did.

Like Dan, he thought he was engaging in scientific research.

Play your own game, folks. Get instruction and work good theoy into your own swing.

[NJpatbee]

Moe had ample opportunity to compete on the PGA Tour.

I don't. Today's PGA Tour is much, much, much deeper than the fields 30, 50, and definitely 90 years ago. Your next sentence speaks to that… :D

This isn't the thread for that, but:

I agree that they're somewhat comparable. While depth can be fairly well assumed by # of competitors, etc. there's no way to compare the top player because there's no bar higher.

Jack didn't regularly drive the ball 340.

Today's equipment benefits the FIELD, thus putting the TOP players at a disadvantage.

Read more here: ​ or ​ .

I think most of us agree that the strength and depth of the field today is greater than it has ever been.  But I believe the OP was considering the ballstriking ability of previous era's best golfers and can we learn anything from their swings.   My point with Jack was that his ballstriking had to be phenomenal to to go over 340 in a particular long drive contest.  My understanding is that pros try to duplicate Jack's feat as an annual tribute (I forget the tournament) and cannot match it.  The farther back you go in time the fewer great golfers there were, but I believe the answer to the original question is "yes", we can learn from the best of the past.