I've never been one to wax nostalgic about the great sports heroes of the past. As far as I'm concerned, athletes today are bigger, faster and more skilled.
I think Shaq would score 100 on Wilt; I don't think Babe Ruth could hit a hard slider; and if Frank Gifford played in today's NFL, I'm sure they would have to carry him off the field on a stretcher.
It's always treacherous to compare sportsmen across eras.
I recently wrote of series of articles trying to rank the greatest golfers of all time (Link here). To avoid the era dilemma, I only judged the golfers by how dominant they were versus the peers of their day. I suggested that the greatest player of all time is the player who was most successful during his own era.
This type of analysis is fairer to older athletes and allows players like Wilt Chamberlain and Babe Ruth to be compared favorably to modern era athletes, even though the old timers were clearly less gifted physically.
After reading many books on golf history, however, I have begun to question whether or not golf might be an exception to this rule. After all, bigger and stronger doesn't seem to matter that much when it comes to the golf swing.
Also, in golf we analysts have a couple of advantages compared to other sports.
First, golf isn't a team sport, so we don't have to worry about whether Bill Russell or Joe Montana were great players or were just on great teams. Golf is simply golfer versus golf course.
Second, in many cases today's golfers are playing the same golf courses that older era golfers played. This allows us to make some comparisons that we can't make in other sports.
Consider the following:
--The US Open has been held at Winged Foot Golf Club in New York five times. Here are the winning scores in relation to par:
1929.......+6
1959.......+2
1974.......+7
1984.......-4
2006.......+5
--The average winning score at Augusta National between 1934 and 1949 was minus 7 strokes in relation to par. The average winning score from 1995-2008 was minus 9 strokes in relation to par.
- B/R Ticket Guide
--In 1937 Byron Nelson shot a 66 in the first round of the Masters at Augusta. The record stood until Ray Floyd's 65 in the first round in 1976.
--In the first round of the 1904 British Open J.H. Taylor shot a 68. In the third round of the 1929 British Open, Walter Hagen shot a 67.
--Ben Hogan won the Vardon Trophy in 1948 with an average score of 69.3. In 2008 Sergio Garcia won the Vardon Trophy with a score of 69.12.
In defense of modern golfers, despite the examples above, in general their average scores are much lower than golfers from the 1920s and 1940s. Also, they are facing some significant disadvantages.
We know that Augusta and Winged Foot have been lengthened considerably in modern times. Also, in 1948 Hogan probably played some pretty easy courses that aren't around anymore.
In addition to being lengthened, other measures have been taken to make today's courses more difficult, including narrower fairways, thicker rough and tougher pin placements.
Modern golfers, however, are playing with vastly superior equipment. It seems reasonable to suggest that equipment may fully compensate for the extended length of the courses as well as their more difficult set up.
After all, all the changes made to the courses have been made specifically by knowledgeable course designers to neutralize the effects of better golf balls and club heads.
Now let's review some of the disadvantages older era golfers faced in terms of scoring. Here is a list, not necessarily in order of importance:
Lack of practice
Because tournament purses were minuscule, most of the golfers ran the pro shops at private golf clubs to earn a living.
Instead of spending every hour of their waking day practicing, these guys were selling golf shoes, reconciling receipts and giving lessons to rich hackers.
Bobby Jones earned a B.A. from Harvard and attended law school during his heyday.
"Hogan invented practice," said Byron Nelson.
Travel conditions were horrendous.
Let's make a bet. I'll fly from LA to Houston in a private jet. You drive the same trip with four guys in a 1938 Ford with no air conditioning. And oh, make sure you take the old two lane highway instead of the interstate.
We'll tee it up as soon as you arrive and see whose game is sharper.
Stymies
Until 1939 your opponent wasn't allowed to mark his ball on the green if his ball was between your ball and the hole. You were "stymied." Players would have to chip over the other golf ball.
No lift, clean, and place on the green
Until 1960 you weren't allowed to lift, clean and place your ball on the green and you weren't allowed to repair ball marks. Players had to putt over ball marks and putt with mud and debris on the ball.
Lift, clean and place wasn't allowed in the fairway in wet, muddy conditions either.
Poor putting greens
The condition of putting greens was a joke. Putting was much more fickle with greens that at best can be described as bumpy.
The greens were so grassy and slow that players had to cock and release their wrists to get their putts to the hole.
No yardage markers
Golfers judged distances by sight alone. Nicklaus invented the personal yardage book.
No personal caddies Golfers hired local caddies at the tournaments they played at.
No swing coaches, no personal trainers, no sport medicine specialists, no psychologists
Why were older era golfers still able to post such low scores? The answer is simple: they were better golfers. And they were better precisely because the equipment was inferior.
Modern players simply hit driver/wedge, driver/wedge, driver/wedge all day. Once upon a time, golfers had to master every club and every shot in the bag, otherwise they wouldn't be successful.
Look at it this way. Who's a better pilot, the 1930s bi-plane barnstormer or the guy flying a modern jetliner?
comments (36) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
I'm not into golf but this is a very well done article. I think today's Golfer has the advantage of equipment that Golfer's in by gone era didn't have as in better clubs, longer striking balls and even range finders so it takes the guess work out of how far you are from the flag and I think any great Golfer from the past could play with the Players on the Tour today
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Mike. Appreciate the compliment.
about 1 month ago
Lou, another great article, however, a conclusion that I disagree with.
All equipment being equal modern players have more training, are better conditioned, and better prepared. They are better.
You said yourself, they practice more. Golf is a way of life, not a pastime for modern pros. It's a simple law of sport. The more you do something the better you get. The more you work at something the better you get.
Older players may have had to adapt to harsher conditions, like poor greens, long bus rides, etc.. but creativity and adaptivity don't make a great golfer. Maybe they were tougher, maybe they were feistier, maybe they had more heart. But they were certainly not better.
Sneaky title by the way. I think it's the only time you mention Tiger...lol. Great article, though.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Ben.
It has been statistically proven on this site that if you put Tiger Woods in the title of your article, you will get 78% more reads. hahahaha
Ben, I didn't just type out that the older guys were better. I provided evidence that they were able to shoot similar scores on the same golf courses under worse conditions. If you want to refute me, you should address those arguments.
about 1 month ago
Agreed Lou, I was a bit hasty in making my point. However, your arguments cannot be refuted. They are fact. Conditions were worse back then. There were no trainers, nutritionists, swing vision etc. Courses were chewed up, and the rules made for some unfair shots (stymies).
The one thing I am arguing, though, is your conclusion of unprovable evidence.
"Modern golfers, however, are playing with vastly superior equipment. It seems reasonable to suggest that equipment may fully compensate for the extended length of the courses as well as their more difficult set up. "
There is not an existing sport in the world where players were better 60 years ago than they are now. Golf is no exception. The courses are tougher relative to the equipment. Sport Evolution says so.
Hey, are you interested in doing any freelance writing? I mean, other than on here.
from about 1 month ago
I'm not so sure. Athletes are bigger and stronger, but golfers aren't athletes. I'm not sure the "all other sports are, therefore golf must be" is a a good enough argument.
I thought my analogy of the pilots was good. Inferior equipment can force you to become more skilled. Modern pilots would have no clue how to handle one of those old planes, yet an older pilot could get up to speed on a jetliner in a couple of hours. I can't prove it, but my father was a pilot in WW2 and served 27 years in the Air Force. He agrees with me.
I am not alone my view about golfers. It is a common refrain from Nicklaus era players. "These guys don't have the shots we did" and "They can go low, but that's onlyh because they never have to hit a 2 iron into a green."
I might be interested in doing some writing, but I'm going to need a good editor. What do you have in mind?
about 1 month ago
First, didn't they carry Gifford off on a stretcher even when he was in his hay day?
I liked your article, and appreciate your angle. My grandfather was a PGA member for over 50 years and played on tour during the late 40's to early 60's. He says as great as Snead and Hogan were, neither compared to Tiger Woods. He believed even with all of the advances in equipment and training, Woods will still dominate.
Since he is my only frame of reference to your point, I thought I would share his perspective. Nice work!!
from about 1 month ago
Thanks, Lucky. I will have more to say about Tiger in future articles. He has no bigger fan than me.
from about 1 month ago
Good one about Gifford, too!!!!!
about 1 month ago
good article.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks, Yoosof!
about 1 month ago
Great article Lou!!
You make some very good points.
I think one of the best points in the article was the fact that the players are playing many of the same courses and the difficulty has remained similar due to lengthening of course and the increasing difficulty of the courses to coincide with the advancement to golf equipment.
You also make some very good points about travel and practice.
I think you are right in that golf is one sports where we can compare player's between generations more so than any other sport.
All of the variables to consider could provide for an endless debate and discussion though.
As I mentioned in one of your previous articles, i have a feeling, that if his knee permits it, Woods will shatter just about every record to a point where there is literally no more dicussion about who is the greatest of all time - we'll have to start writing articles and debating about who is the second best player of all time.
Excellent article!
from about 1 month ago
Thanks, Martin. How about all these comments finally? Maybe we can keep these guys coming back to the golf articles!
about 1 month ago
Great read Lou - I'd say Bobby Jones, his "Modern Fundamentals of Golf" instructional book or video is the best, bar none - he was before Hogan. I always get those two mixed up. Jones changed the game - he taught his skill openly, no secretes...it was all about torque and controlling one's emotion. You dont have to swing hard at all, nice and easy does it - slow and low....every body, regardless of size or height, generates torque...its the ability to manage that torque and consistently which makes a golfer great.
Modern equipment allows for the ego to take control so they can grip it and rip it - I'd love to see some of those guys play with titanium, juiced balls and fairways+greens so pristine that they'd put a barber to shame. I dare say that the older generation were better putters b/c of their control and on those nasty greens....we'd put the putter right into the dirt if we had to putt on them.
Jones remained an amateur throughout his career which he ended when he was 28 to practice law full time (he was a part time player) and thought the game should remain a gentleman's game - maybe he was right considering how the game has changed....though I certainly like my war arsenal.
He was the only man to ever win the Grand Slam (the real one) and did it as an amateur - without the millions. He was also only the 2nd American to be honored in Scotland as "A freeman of the year" (free masons society) - the only other man to be awarded that distinction was Ben Franklin.
Ben Hogan is also up there. One thing to remember is that these guys played with wooden shafts and on greens that were more likened to horse tracks. Their ball was as dead as it gets too and they would knuckle around when not hit right...ours dont do that-they just slice :o)
Of retiring at such an early age Jones said "Championships are like a cage, you're expected to get in it and once in, then you're expected to stay there - and of course nobody can stay there"
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Patrick. I posted an extensive profile of Jones a few weeks ago. You might want to read it. Mark Frost wrote a very good biography of Jones you might want to read as well.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/73123-why-jack-nicklaus-is-not-the-best-golfer-in-history-part-three-bobby-jones
about 1 month ago
Hogan winning the three majors in 1953, just three years removed from the horrendous crash that by all accounts should have killed him is an accomplishment that Tiger's US Open limp-fest can't hope to match. I think Hogan is greater than Woods simply because of his perseverance and determination in the face of long odds and tough obstacles.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Jim. You are right about Hogan. You might want to read my Hogan article from a couple of weeks ago.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/75988-why-jack-nicklaus-is-not-the-best-golfer-in-history-part-four-ben-hogan
Also, Harry Vardon was almost killed by a case of TB in his prime at the age of 30, but came back to win several British Opens. I also profiled him earlier. You should give it a read.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/68485-why-jack-nicklaus-is-not-the-best-golfer-in-history-part-1-harry-vardon
about 1 month ago
I'll say Hogan was better, in fact I'll go as far to say he's the best ever. (Jones might have modernized the game, but Hogan's book is still the standard swing book for golfers)
Great research and writing.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks Ray. You should read the Dobson bio. Here's the bit I did a few weeks ago.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/75988-why-jack-nicklaus-is-not-the-best-golfer-in-history-part-four-ben-hogan
about 1 month ago
Excellent. You obviously did a lot of research to prove your point here and make us readers think about things like the changes of rules and equipment quality over the years. Before reading this, I would have easily said Tiger was the best ever, but now you have me convinced otherwise. For what it's worth, this is an great, great article.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks a lot, Jason. Check back in a week or so. I have a follow up to this article that you are really going to enjoy.
about 1 month ago
Excellent! Great points. Very thought provoking article. It must take courage to even suggest a title like that.
I also follow tennis. Even compared to the ATP tour where you are competing all around the world, the folks on the PGA tour (especially the US based ones) can sleep in their bed rooms almost every week.
There is no comparison of the rigor and grind of the PGA tour to the ATP tour of today let alone to the tour of Hogan days. You said captured that very well.
Almost all the players on the PGA tour are conditioned to simply accept Tiger to be the #1 in all their playing lifetime. They are very happy to end up second or in the top 10 or even to qualify to play on the PGA tour and make a good living. This is in stark contrast to other sports. It was also different when Nicklaus played. Tiger knows that in the end he will win. I don't know if Nicklaus or Hogan ever felt like that.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Tennismasta. I don't know much about tennis.
PGA tour players have been conditioned to expect Tiger to be number 1 because he always beats them. Jack's competitors had hope only because Jack finished second so many time.
about 1 month ago
Tiger Woods is better than Jack, Ben and any other golfer in the history of sport. He was winning a such an amazing pace; Jack was put in charge of redesigning the courses to make them more difficult. Nevertheless he's still destroying the competition. Do you think Ben would be able to compete at this day and time? After all the courses were easier when he played compared to the ones that Tiger plays on now. I doubt very seriously that Jack or Ben would have the amount of Major Tournaments under there belts today if Tiger played in there era. They would choke from the pressure just like everyone else in the final round. Look at Jacks history in golf he left alot of majors on the table because the inability the finish. Tiger has also taken golf to a level that has never been witnessed in the history of the game. He has made a historically boring sport interesting to the average person in American and he is also the global icon for the sport. Not to mention the fact He is the only reason that golf gets the major attention that has received to date. Make whatever excuses you like about Tiger not being the best; when its all said and done he will own every important record in golf. He will rule on the Senior Tour as well (so scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
from about 1 month ago
I don't disagree with you Brandon. The point of the articles I have been writing is that older era golfers are underrated.
In an article I posted last week, I proved that Tiger Woods is statistically 6 times better than Nicklaus.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/82036-ranking-the-greatest-golfers-of-all-time-harry-vardon-to-tiger-woods
about 1 month ago
Brandon I would have to say. I have nothing to sayyou said it all.
about 1 month ago
You golf opinions are reasonable. Your basketball analogy was terrible. Wilt was bigger and stronger than Shaq. I saw them both in their prime. Wilt could also run the floor like a gazelle. Bad choice to make your point.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks fo rthe comment, Dwight.
I disagree strongly. I only saw Wilt play at the end of his career. He was terrible. He had no offensive skills whatsoever and was only in the game because just being 7 feet was enough to get enough rebounds to make a difference.
They all were terrible in the '70's. I watched one of the old Lakers/Knicks final games on ESPN classic one night. Wilt looked like a retard. The stuff he was chucking up didn't have a prayer of getting in the hoop. Those set shots that Bradley and Debusherre were chucking up were a joke. I would run the UConn women's basketball team at those guys.
According to Wikipedia, Wilt entered the league at 250 pounds and eventually got up to 275. He didn't bulk up to 300 pounds until late in his career.
That means that during those years when Wilt piled up all those record stats, he weighed an average of 260-265. Shaq weighs 320. You ever try to stand up against a guy in baskeball who outweighs you by 60 pounds? That's how Wilt scored all those points in the 50's, plus he was 5 inches taller than everybody else.
Plus Shap is much more nimble and coordinated than Wilt and always had a very reliable turnaround jumper from inside. He would eat Wilt alive.
about 1 month ago
Lou, I enjoyed your article, you brought up a lot of interesting points that I have long argued about the performance of past champions, in golf and in team competitions. The travel, the equipment, the competition, and the pay especially. Tiger Woods was already a millionarie before he struck his first professional shot, whereas Hogan, Snead, Jones, and even Nicklaus and Palmer HAD to win to support themselves and their family. THAT is pressure.
Also, to Brandon, I have to say, while Tiger Woods is a great golfer, one of the best, he intimidates golfers less and less as time goes by. Bob May, Rich Beem, Zack Johnson, etc etc. didn't seem to wilt under the pressure of playing Woods. And I am not sure where you got your info on Nicklaus choking,...lol. From the tourneys I remember, Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino, Palmer, Player, Floyd,..they all were remarkable finishers.
Quiz for ya,....name the 5 greatest golfers in the Tiger Woods era?? Then add up their majors. Now name the 5 greatest in the Nicklaus era, and add theirs. It really isn't very close. Player, Watson or Palmer alone has almost as many majors by themselves as any 5 guys you could name in this era.
Golf Digest did a poll of the 25 greatest golfer of all-time in 2000. Palmer, Watson, Player and Billy Casper (who won as many majors as anyone playing today outside Tiger) were all in the top 15. Ray Floyd was 21.
My main point is, they say there are more players capable of winning a tournament today than ever before, but how many of them are really champion caliber players? There might have been overall less talent in generations past, but there were many more true champions.
We'll never know who would win between Jones and Hogan, Hogan and Nicklaus, Nicklaus and Tiger, or any matchup of generations...but from what I remember of Nicklaus, he wouldn't blink once.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment Blanton:
I don't know of any record of Nicklaus losing a late lead or missing a big putt or any kind of "choke". He did finish second in 18 majors, but in the game of golf that should be viewed as a strength, not a weakness. Also the Beem, Zach Johnson, Immelman victories don't detract in the least from Tiger's legacy.
This isn't tennis, where a Lendl, Sampras or Federer wins everything for 3 to 5 years and then loses it. Any top five finish in a major is a big deal. You need some luck to win a major, which is what is so great about the guys that have won 6 and more. They have transcended the luck of the game by putting themselves in position to benefit from those little breaks the most times.
from about 1 month ago
It seems to me that arguing by comparing the number of majors won by the older guys compared to the majors won by 5 below Woods defeats itself. The Nicklaus, Palmer group were very good golfers and shared the majors, with Nicklaus, the best of them, getting the most. But the reason the best golfers today don't have as many majors isn't that they are mediocre, it's that Tiger is so far above them all.
The best of the guys who can't beat Woods might win more against Nicklaus/Palmer than they would lose, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it, and boy would it be fun to watch. As an official Old F@rt, I would be pulling for the Old F@rts, but none of them could win one round in ten against Tiger if big money was on the table.
about 1 month ago
Lou,
My intention wasn't to disrespect what Tiger has achieved, but to acknowledge what great golfers of the past achieved. I think the fact that golfers don't cower in fear at Tiger the way most of them did 5 to 8 years ago makes the things he has accomplished in the last few years and possibly the future mean even more.
Nicklaus, Hogan, Jones were the greatest of their era, just as Tiger is now. The thing that separated them from other players was their ability to stay in control of their own game, while being able to raise their level of play when needed. I just think, and records probably would verify, that there were more clutch players around Nicklaus, and Hogan and Jones than in today's game.
Lou, I also noticed your comments on Wilt Chamberlain and Shaq, saying Shaq was "much more nimble and coordinated" than Wilt. Chamberlain was a tremendous athlete. He ran track in high school, competing in the broad jump, the 440, the 880, the high jump, and throwing the shot. He also become a great volleyball player after his years in the NBA, and although his height was of course a benefit, he become much more sound technically the more he played the game. I have argued in Shaq's defense to many, and he is a dominating player, and would be in any era,...but so was Chamberlain.
from about 1 month ago
You might be interested in the profiles I wrote of Jones and Hogan a little while back. Walter Hagen and Harry Vardon are two guy who had similar careers, but aren't as well known. If you click back in my old posts you will find them.
There sure are a lot of Wilt fans out there. I love Wilt too. In high school, I used to go down and watch the San Diego Conquistadors, the old ABA team. Wilt was their coach. They played in a 4,000 seat arena they could only sell out when the New Jersey Nets and Dr. J came into town.
I just don't think Wilt would be a star in today's game. He never had the offensive skills. He scored all his points dunking over 6 foot 5 inch guys he outweighed by 50 pounds. He had no shooting touch whatsoever. Jabbar was the first seven footer who could shoot, and that was only because of the sky hook. Shaq had all of Wilt's skills plus he was absolute money with the 10-15 foot turnaround jumper.
I can't prove it, but I think most of the big stars of the NBA from the 50's, 60's and 70's would have a hard time even making a roster in today's NBA. Same with the NFL. Baseball I'm not so sure about. It's a little more like golf, more a hand eye coordination sport than a size and speed sport.
about 1 month ago
Lou, you have to measure all of your argument against the math: Consider that golf in Hogan's time drew on a small population of privileged white guys who had the time and money to take up the game. Now you have children all over a far more prosperous world starting lessons when they are five. There are probably more ten year old boys in the world right now taking lessons than there were men playing golf when Hogan started. The depth of talented players now is mind-boggling compared to when Hogan played and Tiger beats these guys all at an unheard of rate. Young players now are growing up well trained and competing intensely against other good players right from the start. That's the real difference in golf now, probably even more than the equipment and the courses. Not being a golfer, I can't really speak to those aspects of the sport, but I can tell you with a fair certainty that if you gave Hogan a year at his peak to get used to modern equipment and courses, Tiger would win probably win 9 of 10 rounds against him—and the same would be true if you put Tiger on Hogan's courses with his equipment and time to get used to them.
As for driver/wedge, driver/wedge, my guess is that they do it because they can. Same as serve a rocket, run to the net, smash. Tennis is a lot more boring now than it used to be because the players are so much better. I remember being really impressed when I read that Rod Laver used to squeeze a tennis ball all the time to make his forearm stronger. (Sounds cute now.) Those great Australian duels to the death were so much fun to watch because those guys lacked the power to end it as fast as the guys of today. So even though Laver, Rosewall, et al, might have had more complete games and a greater mastery of more shots (very debatable, by the way), they would rarely have gotten a chance to use them.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment, Rob. All your points are well taken. I think you would be very interested in my lastest series of posts where I tried to address many of the issues you raise.
Here is a link to my conclusive article, which contains links to the the previous ones.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/82036-ranking-the-greatest-golfers-of-all-time-harry-vardon-to-tiger-woods
about 1 month ago
One last thing addressed to all who post here:
Golf is a game where the players still manage to adhere to the quaint old time honor code of self-reporting even the most harmless rules infractions, and that is in a time when a one stroke penalty can make a difference of many thousands of dollars. So to me, a big NFL fan, who faithfully keeps up with a lot of the NFL bulletin boards, it is a relief to read golf posts that begin with, "Great point!" or "Lou, another great article, however. . . ."
After all, it does get a tad wearisome wading through all of the, "Hay, you dum d#%cheb@g, why don't you go back too f#%king your sister and take all your homer sh*t with you, you frawd! Your a a$$ho!e!"
Thanks for the breath of fresh air.
write a new comment