Who is on Golf's Mount Rushmore?

[Curt]

It's quite a bit of fan mania, for sure.  Hey, lots of people like to see him perform, no question about it.  He's a rock star.

Arnie had his Army. 

Jones got two ticker tape parades in NYC... only one other person ever did (John Glenn, if I recall correctly),... not Eisenhower, not FDR, not JFK, not Babe Ruth nor Muhammed Ali... 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Curt
add small amount of content

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Curt said:

Jones got two ticker tape parades in NYC... only one other person ever did (John Glenn, if I recall correctly),... not Eisenhower, not FDR, not JFK, not Babe Ruth nor Muhammed Ali... 

List of ticker-tape parades in New York City - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ticker-tape_parades_in_New_York_City

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, Curt said:

It's quite a bit of fan mania, for sure.  Hey, lots of people like to see him perform, no question about it.  He's a rock star.

Arnie had his Army. 

Jones got two ticker tape parades in NYC... only one other person ever did (John Glenn, if I recall correctly),... not Eisenhower, not FDR, not JFK, not Babe Ruth nor Muhammed Ali... 

 

Glenn wasn't even the first astronaut to get a parade.

Jesse Owens had one. You are way off base here. 

You can like whoever you want on your personal Golf Mt. Rushmore, but you arguments against other's choice are weak. Early golf was a rich man's sport and was for a long time. Tom Morris, Harry Vardon weren't Francis Quimet. 

[Curt]

I don't see how I'm off base... but it's possible that I'm wrong.  All I said was Jones had two parades, not one, and I didn't say others didn't have one but if I am correct nobody else had two, except for Glenn.  (I didn't say Glenn was first astro, nor did I nix Owens from having one.)  It's possible I'm misinformed, though, about the others not having two, but I know that Jones did have two, and for that era that's about as celebrity as it gets... just in case folks think celebrity is a criteria for "influence on golf," though I'm not sure that's a good criteria.

And as an argument against celebrity alone as a criteria "golf influence," I noted that even amidst Tiger's celebrity, actual participation in golf has gone down, and the decline of golf participation, again if I'm not mistaken, is just a fact.  Vardon and Jones both helped make golf more participatorily popular, helped grow the game amongst the masses, and thus helped spur the construction of great new courses around the country at a time when there was a dearth so that more people, not less, could play, and I'd say that's pretty influential and a benefit to all of us and really opened the game to the masses and helped get it OUT of the "wealthy privileged" confines.  So, it's NOT celebrity ALONE that is a good marker, though it could be a contributing factor.  That's why I think that "Tiger is the most famous and therefore the most influential" argument doesn't hold water in the end.  

I'm not arguing that Woods's family was wealthy; I am arguing that he did have a uniquely privileged upbring AS PER GOLF.  He was literally nurtured from the cradle to be a golfer.  And hey, it worked, thankfully, and the world got one of it's greatest golfers out of such an upbringing.

I'm also not arguing that Woods shouldn't be on the mountain; I am arguing that Vardon should be.  And yes I'm giving out my personal choices of Hogan and Nicklaus to round off the four faces of the rock.  That's what I said for my choices, in the end: Vardon, Hogan, Woods, Nicklaus.   I'm not off base with those choices.   

I am arguing that there are cases to be made for alternatives to Woods (or Vardon or Hogan, for that matter) depending on one's criteria.  Jones and Player (my personal, yes, favorites), Snead, Hagen.. and although there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of Player advocates on this thread - but maybe I'm missing 'em - others besides myself on this thread have indeed mentioned Jones, Snead, and Hagen as candidates too, so I don't think I'm too far off base there, either.  I'd like to see a woman up there too, but maybe that's a separate mountain? 

 

[klineka]

12 minutes ago, Curt said:

And as an argument against celebrity alone as a criteria "golf influence," I noted that even amidst Tiger's celebrity, actual participation in golf has gone down, and the decline of golf participation, again if I'm not mistaken, is just a fact.  Vardon and Jones both helped make golf more participatorily popular, helped grow the game amongst the masses, and thus helped spur the construction of great new courses around the country at a time when there was a dearth so that more people, not less, could play, and I'd say that's pretty influential and a benefit to all of us and really opened the game to the masses and helped get it OUT of the "wealthy privileged" confines.  So, it's NOT celebrity ALONE that is a good marker, though it could be a contributing factor.  That's why I think that "Tiger is the most famous and therefore the most influential" argument doesn't hold water in the end.  

You are way off base in your statements about Tiger.

Read the quote below that describes how Tiger made the game more popular, helped grow the game among the masses, and helped spur the construction of new courses. 

The fact that the number of golfers decreased by 2015 actually works more in Tiger's favor, since the time period between 2011-2015 was when he experience a lot of his injuries and played the least amount. The number of golfers increased when Tiger was up and coming/at his peak, and the number of golfers decreased when he wasnt at his peak and was injured/not playing a lot. What more proof do you need about influence? 

 

 

"Just as people who'd never before shown interest started watching the game, they also jumped on the bandwagon to take up his sport. In 1996, before the days of Woods, there were about 24.4 million golfers in America. Ten years later, that number had skyrocketed to 29.8 million players.

Along with a marked rise in the number of people playing golf came an influx of golf course development. In the early 1990s, even before Woods turned pro, new golf courses were going up regularly.

Once the Tiger-inspired golf boom hit, construction certainly didn't slow down. By 2006, there were over 2,000 more 18-hole-equivalent courses in the U.S. than there had been in 1996.

Participation has leveled out somewhat in recent years. The number of players in America had returned to 24.1 million by 2015. However, the number of rounds played has remained relatively high. In pre-Tiger 1996, American golfers played a total of 429.7 million rounds of golf. In 2015, that figure was up to 465.8 million."

https://www.stgeorgesgolf.com/Blog/May_2018/tiger-woods-effect.aspx

Edited December 12, 2018 by klineka

[Curt]

A temporary uptick due to a given celebrity of anything doesn't equate to long-term overall influence,  Well, I have acknowledged that my facts might be wrong, but the article you cite directly contradicts other info I just read a couple days ago regarding the numbers of golfers going down overall, and the concerns that such a phenomenon is causing the golf industry.  . I'm at work and am not going to pull it up now.

I've said my piece and made my peace with Tiger on the mountain.  

Here's a thought for another thread: which golfers have influenced YOUR PERSONAL golf game the most?  For me that one's easy: Hogan, followed by Jones and Player.  (I cannot emulate Tiger, and I don't even want to...)

[turtleback]

20 hours ago, Curt said:

Or, you're a youngster who doesn't read history?  There's nothing new about an interlocking grip.  

And as for losing the first two words.... well, you can debate others about that.  

LOL about history.  Many of us here are deeply steeped in the history of golf, including @iacas so you REALLY don't want to go there, English professor or not.  And if @brocks shows up I'd be really careful on the history front.

You already are evidencing some reading comprehension problems.

NO ONE SAID the interlocking was new (and no it isn't a variation of the Vardon any more than the Vardon is a variation of the ten-finger),.  They (I) said that the 2 best players ever both rejected it - a true statement.  When someone makes a true point and you respond with a distortion (the implication that a claim about the interlock being new to Jack and Tiger) and an incorrect statement (interlock as a variation of the Vardon) you really haven't countered the point.  And going back to understanding how history works, we don't know for sure, but it is very likely that Vardon did not invent the Vardon, he merely popularized it.

20 hours ago, Curt said:

and there's this, to fuel the debate, so it's not just me...  :  

from the article entitled "Tiger's Competition Pales in Comparison to Jack's" by Daniel Wexler: 

"...For venerable writer/historian Al Barkow, however, the issue is more cut-and-dried.

"The players giving Tiger his competition are just as good as those who Jack faced in terms of pure talent, but they don't have the heart, the guts, the tenacity, maybe even the sense of pride that the [Tom] Watsons and [Lee] Trevinos had."

Why, one wonders, would such things be lacking?

"It has to do with money," Barkow continues, "although no one likes to say that. But today's players are so rich they don't have the real need for money the previous generation had, and are also so incredibly pampered and spoiled from the day they took up the game."  ..."

Now, the above is not me, though I do hear him loud and clear, BUT > and for my personal take: I'll take heart, guts, tenacity, and pride any day over pampered prima donnas.  Give a Vardon playing in the rain with unraked sandtraps, a Jones doing college homework between tourney stops, a Hogan coming up hardscrabble, a Player actually pioneering physical fitness BEFORE it was cool...   

Yeah, I must admit I'm a bit oldschool that way, and I'm less impressed with somebody born with a silver club in their crib. 

But, I'm an old-timer after all.  Although, I must admit I'm enjoying my new clubs!  (thank you Callaway for your Rogue line)

We'll that pretty much describes half your Mt. Rushmore, Jack and Bobby - what it DOESN'T describe is Tiger Woods, whose father was military at a time the military didn't pay well, who was discriminated against at various turns, who grew up playing on military base courses, not Scioto nor the Atlanta Country Club.  That history and logic stuff can be pesky.

19 hours ago, Curt said:

I have acknowledged Tiger's greatness as a golfer.  I put him on the Mountain.  

He is not my favorite player, though, and I've iterated multiple reasons why.  I also do not think he was nor is the most influential.  One of the best performers, for sure, but not the most influential.  In fact, participation in golf has actually gone down in the last twenty years, not up.

As for my delusionality, perhaps it's true, I've been called worse.  But, Tiger did lead a privileged life WHEN IT CAME TO GOLF.  He was molded from birth by his father, who put a club in his crib and had him out playing on the course before age three.  He played for free, also, since childhood.  He was sort of like Mozart that way... physically and mentally molded from birth for success in one specific field.  Of course, he was a child prodigy and ended up with the physical talent to take advantage of that privileged golf upbringing... but the fact remains that few people ever were more deliberately molded for golf success, and it worked!  And I'm glad it worked.  But, it's simply not something that anybody can emulate, so that alone makes others a better model for the masses.  Nevertheless -- Tiger is great because he shows the world the epitome of golfing performance, i.e. pushes the envelope of human achievement, however he got there.  For that, I thank his father and him.  I hope he continues to enjoy a long - and happy - career and personal life.  He's exciting to watch.

The only privilege Tiger ever had in golf was the privilege of TALENT.  The rest came from hard work one overcoming obstacles.

[turtleback]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

List of ticker-tape parades in New York City - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ticker-tape_parades_in_New_York_City

Damn, there is that history again.  Tiger never got a ticket tape parade, in an era where there were almost none except for championship winning team's from NY, while Jones got two in an era where they were handed out like lollipops at a kids barber shop.  Heck, they gave Jones one for the singular achievement of winning the 1926 British Open.

[Curt]

24 minutes ago, turtleback said:

LOL about history.  Many of us here are deeply steeped in the history of golf, including @iacas so you REALLY don't want to go there, English professor or not.  And if @brocks shows up I'd be really careful on the history front.

You already are evidencing some reading comprehension problems.

We'll that pretty much describes half your Mt. Rushmore, Jack and Bobby - what it DOESN'T describe is Tiger Woods, whose father was military at a time the military didn't pay well, who was discriminated against at various turns, who grew up playing on military base courses, not Scioto nor the Atlanta Country Club.  That history and logic stuff can be pesky.

The only privilege Tiger ever had in golf was the privilege of TALENT.  The rest came from hard work one overcoming obstacles.

What I read in somebody else's claim was that the interlocking grip was somehow not based on the grip Vardon popularized, advocated, or however you want to put it, that it was somehow fundamentally different than the basic Vardon.  Perhaps my reading comprehension isn't that great, as I do have some trouble understanding some people's arguments, it's true.  But, to claim that Vardon did not influence the vast, vast majority of golfers, when it comes to grip, ought be seen clearly and patently false to anybody with any sort of golf history knowledge.  My jab was in reaction to a personal jab at me as "an oldtimer who hates anything new" which is also patently false.

TALENT alone did not bring Tiger to where he got, which is an admirable place as I've acknowledged repeatedly. Talent alone never brings anybody anywhere, so let's not be naive; talent PLUS training and opportunity is what it takes.   However, I guess I don't understand how being bred literally from the crib to be a great golfer is not a privilige, an advantage to use another word, on the road to becoming a great golfer.  As I said in another post, it's kind of like Mozart in that regard; yes, he had requisite in-born talent, check, but he also had a father who molded his body, mind, and career right from infancy.  Perhaps our disagreement results from different definitions of privilege; in my definition, privilege isn't necessarily about monetary wealth.  

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

What I read in somebody else's claim was that the interlocking grip was somehow not based on the grip Vardon popularized, advocated, or however you want to put it, that it was somehow fundamentally different than the basic Vardon.

Nobody said that.

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

But, to claim that Vardon did not influence the vast, vast majority of golfers, when it comes to grip, ought be seen clearly and patently false to anybody with any sort of golf history knowledge.

The Vardon grip is not so different than the ten-finger grip that I am comfortable assigning credit to either. The three popular grip styles evolved into what they are today. Vardon, even if he truly "invented" it himself, doesn't deserve very much credit. His "invention" is a tiny change from what they were already doing. He didn't truly invent some wholly new way of doing things.

The guy who thought to wrap leather around the butt end of the club deserves more credit, IMO, for inventing a "grip" then Harry Vardon.

I have a great deal of golf knowledge, and historical golf knowledge, so bollocks.

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

My jab was in reaction to a personal jab at me as "an oldtimer who hates anything new" which is also patently false.

Can't prove it by your posts so far, man. You cited ticker tape parades as if there is some standard by which they're given out, seemingly unaware of the fact that they used to be given out because it was a Tuesday, and today you probably wouldn't get one if you won all four majors in both golf and tennis in the same year.

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

TALENT alone did not bring Tiger to where he got, which is an admirable place as I've acknowledged repeatedly. Talent alone never brings anybody anywhere, so let's not be naive; talent PLUS training and opportunity is what it takes.

What's that got to do with anything? Nobody's argued anything like what you are making up to argue against in your own mind.

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

However, I guess I don't understand how being bred literally from the crib to be a great golfer is not a privilige, an advantage to use another word, on the road to becoming a great golfer.

You do realize that you've still gotta DO the things, right? That there have been plenty of people who had a life of "privilege" and still failed to do much of anything.

Bobby Jones lived a more privileged life than Tiger Woods. Jack Nicklaus, too.

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

Perhaps our disagreement results from different definitions of privilege; in my definition, privilege isn't necessarily about monetary wealth.  

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you, per se. I disagreed with you that Tiger lived "a privileged life" at first, but dropped it when you went down this nonsense road of "a privileged golf life" or something.

Who cares? What's the relevance there? Does it somehow diminish what he achieved? And if so, why don't you similarly diminish what Jones and Nicklaus achieved?

[Curt]

37 minutes ago, Curt said:

What I read in somebody else's claim was that the interlocking grip was somehow not based on the grip Vardon popularized, advocated, or however you want to put it, that it was somehow fundamentally different than the basic Vardon.

"Nobody said that."  

hm, OK, again there's that pesky reading comprehension thing again, but here's the exact quote that I read earlier on this very stream:  "The 2 greatest players in the history of the game both use(d)  the interlocking grip, not the Vardon. " 

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what I see between those quote marks.

[Curt]

57 minutes ago, iacas said:

... nonsense road of "a privileged golf life" or something.

Who cares? What's the relevance there? Does it somehow diminish what he achieved? And if so, why don't you similarly diminish what Jones and Nicklaus achieved?

It does not diminish what he has achieved, it only clarifies how he achieved it.  Education matters, and early education most likely matters most of all. Earlier I compared Tiger to Mozart, so in my book that's ultimately a compliment.  Mozart is my favorite composer, with Beethoven a close second.  Mozart's achievements are not diminished by his early, deliberate, and intensive training, and indeed they were made possible by it.  Likewise, Tiger.  Tiger is the Mozart of Golf.  Let's pray that Tiger stays healthy and ages well and plays as well as Player does in older age.  Tiger is a great champion.  

Jones did not ever have the intensive, deliberate training that Tiger had.  He did have access to a course, but he was not bred to be a champion golfer. He did have some lessons, somewhat informal, once his interest emerged.  Jones was encouraged and nurtured and put on the road to tour, once his natural talent become glaringly evident, but he was not "programmed" from birth for the role. And Jones didn't even practice all that much, not by Hoganesque standards.  Jones was too busy with school. Neither did Hogan have such early intensive education in the skill.  So, if we go by talent ALONE, which is never a good idea, however, a case could be made that either of those two, Jones especially, had at least as much "talent" as Tiger.

I don't know enough about Nicklaus's early education to comment on it.  I just like Jack as a golfer and as a man.  I am lacking knowledge of numerous of the games greatest; for example, I do not know enough about Snead. I'd like to know more about Hagen and about Byron Nelson and about Tom Watson.  I do know something about Jones, having read four books about him and two by him and own his instructional videos, another thing he pioneered.  I admire Jones immensely, and not only for his golf.  I admire him as a man.  I also likewise know a bit about Hogan, though I'm no expert.  I also know a bit about Tiger, though I'm no Tiger expert either; however, he did figure prominently in my research for two graduate seminars in the Philosophy and Ethics of Sport, so I did pick up some facts. (When my book on Poker Ethics comes out, I'll be sure to let you know.)  I teach college Philosophy, as well as English, which may explain my predilection for constructive, hopefully, debate.  But again, your knowledge of the issues could easily outstrip mine, and should outstrip mine if you're more serious about golf than I am, and I'm happy to acknowledge my relative ignorance in the face of true experts... but I'm pretty serious about golf... I'm just not that good at it!  Hey, I'm working on it.

But again, back to a relevant point: obviously Tiger is a beloved figure, one of the greatest golfers ever, though NOT obviously "the" greatest and not obviously the most influential ever (as others besides myself have noted on this very thread) , and my hat is off to him and to all his fans.  I've said it before and I've said it again, Tiger on the Mountain.  I'm with you there.  We have agreement on that point. 

But I'm glad to be able to participate in this discussion, really!  I think it's great.  Thank you Sand Trap for providing this platform, this community of people who are actually interested in our beloved sport and who are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to provide some really interesting commentary and participate in civil debate.  It's a wonderful service, and I enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

hm, OK, again there's that pesky reading comprehension thing again, but here's the exact quote that I read earlier on this very stream:  "The 2 greatest players in the history of the game both use(d)  the interlocking grip, not the Vardon. " 

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what I see between those quote marks.

@Curt, you're trolling at this point, or something.

"The two greatest players in the history of the game both used the interlocking grip, not the Vardon" is not talking about whether the grip is fundamentally different than the Vardon grip as you keep saying:

2 hours ago, Curt said:

What I read in somebody else's claim was that the interlocking grip was somehow not based on the grip Vardon popularized, advocated, or however you want to put it, that it was somehow fundamentally different than the basic Vardon.

Nobody has claimed that which you keep saying they've claimed. If you're actually an English professor… Oh my.

48 minutes ago, Curt said:

it only clarifies how he achieved it.

Good, because I don't care "how" he achieved it, only that he did.

48 minutes ago, Curt said:

Jones did not ever have the intensive, deliberate training that Tiger had.  He did have access to a course, but he was not bred to be a champion golfer. He did have some lessons, somewhat informal, once his interest emerged.

You should brush up on your golf history:

Born in Atlanta, Georgia, Jones battled health issues as a young boy, and golf was prescribed to strengthen him. Encouraged by his father, "Colonel" Robert Purmedus Jones, an Atlanta lawyer, Jones loved golf from the start. He developed quickly into a child prodigy, who won his first children's tournament at the age of six at his home course at East Lake Golf Club. In 1916, Jones won his first major golf event when he claimed the inaugural Georgia Amateur Championship conducted by the Georgia State Golf Association at the Capital City Club, in Brookhaven, at age 14. His victory at this event put him in the national spotlight for the first time. The Georgia Amateur win caught the eye of the United States Golf Association which awarded Jones his first invitation to the U.S. Amateur at Merion near Philadelphia. Jones advanced to the quarterfinals in his first playing in the event.

He was influenced by club professional Stewart Maiden, a native of Carnoustie, Scotland. Maiden was the professional at the Atlanta Athletic Club's East Lake Golf Club, who also trained Alexa Stirling, five years older than Jones but also a prodigy, at East Lake around the same time. Jones also received golf lessons from Willie Ogg when he was in his teenage years.

"Lessons" weren't really a "thing" back then, but Jones was taught by Maiden as much as anyone was taught by someone else back then.

Thing is… I don't really care. This isn't even on topic. So enough.

48 minutes ago, Curt said:

And Jones didn't even practice all that much, not by Hoganesque standards.

Because he didn't have to; there weren't that many people to beat back then.

48 minutes ago, Curt said:

So, if we go by talent ALONE, which is never a good idea, however, a case could be made that either of those two, Jones especially, had at least as much "talent" as Tiger.

No, it really couldn't. Again:

I don't think you have anything more to say on the topic here, @Curt, so good, we can be done now.

[mchepp]

For mine I want to find the best of each of the important categories in golf. Architecture, Teaching, Playing, popularizing. Yeah, the last one is loose so it'll be debatable, but nonetheless this is my list. 

1. Architecture - Alister MacKenzie . Has Augusta and Cypress Point in the portfolio. This could be debated but he is my pick as the most influential designer. 

2. Teaching - Harvey Penick. Yes, there are better teachers, in fact many of the really good ones come from my generation, but if we have to pick a father of teaching I was torn between Davis Love Jr and Penick, and went with Penick.

3. Playing - Tiger. Jack is close but there is little true argument that Tiger is better

4. Popularizing - Arnie. Did the most to popularize the game. 

[ChetlovesMer]

@mchepp, thanks for taking this thread in a new direction. I like the best in each of four categories methodology. 

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

He developed quickly into a child prodigy, who won his first children's tournament at the age of six at his home course at East Lake Golf Club.

I am assuming this is the same East Lake that Tiger just won the tour championship on. Geez @Curt! If that is not a "Privileged" upbringing in golf terms, nothing is.

As I said before, you can have anyone you wish on your Mt., but your arguments against other's choices are incredibly weak. I suggest you move on.  We have loads of other threads you can post in.

 

[Sonoran]

Tiger, Arnold, Jack, Bobby, Hawk, Snead, and Byron.

 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Sonoran said:

Tiger, Arnold, Jack, Bobby, Hawk, Snead, and Byron.

You have to lose three of those to fit on Mt. Rushmore.