Who is the greatest golfer to live?

Hogan? Sneed? Old Tom? Jack? Tiger?

Name who you think was the greatest and why.

There is a lot of chat on here about some of the old guys being miles better than the golfers today, but the way I see it is that in those days, the competition was tiny in comparison to today.

Hogan is often said to be the greatest ballstriker, but he played against a field thousands of times smaller than is common today, and with much less pressure than is known today.

Golf now is a global game, there are now millions of players from every country in the world vying for a place on the PGA Tour - whereas in the old days, it was only a handful of guys from America with a few Brits and others thrown in.

And what's more, todays players are all younger, fitter, stronger, faster, better equipped and more knowledgeable. Plus the courses are longer, tighter, faster and harder. (Imagine dropping Sam Sneed onto a modern US Open - he'd have a heart attack)

All of this would suggest that Tiger Woods will go down as the greatest player in history.

Discuss

 

I shall think this through too.

Cracking opening gambit in setting this debate!

I am going to keep out of this one. as there is so much that I disagree with what Jonny has said in his opening article.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/83114452/Masters-Historic-Imagery

This link alone makes one of your facts a fabrication, a thousand times smaller you said.

I can probably dispute most of what you have said Jonny, but you are a friend and I have no intention of involving myself in an argument that neither of us will win.

Tiger woods? Jack? Tiger in the next 2 or 3 years will overtake jacks major wins and total tour wins. He will however need to finish in the top ten of all 4 majors every year for the next 10 years to match Niclaus on major top 10 finishes. If he decides to play that long. Who knows? How can you compare?

 Tiger hasn't done it yet. There was a time when I thought Faldo was going to be right up there but look what happened to him when he tried to change his swing). I have to say Niklaus still rates up at the top but he's not my favourite player. I always used to love watching Wieskopt...what a majestic swing. Crenshaw's putting was a marvel. It'd be interesting to form a player from the strenghs of the masters of driving, the short game and a dash of Seve for flair.

Personally I think Jonny's pretty much summed this up and in all honesty you can't compare.

Modern day athletes have the modern day advancements in terms of science and technology not only for equipment but for training, nutrition etc etc  So whilst you may get more competitors harder obstacles you can't really compare like for like because they are not alike.

Any athlete of any era can only perform and compete against and with what is available at that time.

I think some of the past athletes that were on the international scene for multi events ie Rugby and Cricket etc were pretty impressive.  But someone will argue the fields were smaller and sports elitists stopping the masses having the opportunity to take up sport at an international level due to finances etc 

I'd say Seve, not  just because of what he achieved but becuase of the impact he made on me and all the other young lads who I started playing golf with many moons ago. 

Laura Davies for me..

Plays the game from her heart is compassionate and a good golferess to boot...

Its like asking in Motor Racing, "Who's the greatest? The decent driver in a great car who keeps winning or the good driver in a decent car who keeps finishing second?"

Too many different elements to give a 'real' answer.

What about Arnie? He started the real money in the game, and took the game worldwide. He personally enticed American Pro's to play in our Open.

As a foot note. Most Top Events have had a starting line-up of around 150 since the early 1900's. So the quantity has been there if not the quality.

Oh, and if "Young Tom" hadn't died of a broken heart so young (24yrs), how many Opens would he have won?

TheLyth

I would say Woods is one of the best putters in the game.  If he was more consistent off the tee he would dominate even more.  I'm not sure about the greatest, we all have our favourites.  Woods is certainly the most exciting to watch in my opinion as the rest of the field seem a little bit "off the production line" i.e all the same!!!

Hogan,Snead,Jones,Thomson,Mickey Wright (female),Els,wie,goosen,imelman but my favorite is Mr Hogan  hands down. I'm liking Kims alot,Anthony not Christinas  at present along with Hunter Mahan.

my favorite golfer would have to be nick faldo as i watched him when i was a kid and he inspired me to play

each era seems to have had its own "best  player" and to try to pick just 1 overall player would be impossible 

what if nicklaus, sneed, old tom morris, had the same sort of technology that tiger has now would they be just as good as tiger????, no-one can answer that, its all just speculation and in 20 years time will there be even better players than there is now as the technology improves all the time

and as john petitt has put it... i dont want to get into an argument that no-one can win

Just watched an old dvd again that David Ley let me have, which was made in 1965 by the Shell company under their "Wonderful world of golf series", which featured a match between Ben Hogan and Sam Snead.

The match was played at the Houston Country club. Texas, which measures over 7000 yards (Yes in 1965 courses were also of that length).

The equipment of the day was of course the well known persimmon woods and bladed irons, Sam even used a 1 iron for a shot during the match, which was strokeplay over 18 holes and won by Ben with a 3 under par 69 to Sams level par 72.

The commentary is by another famous old pro, a previous Open winner by the name of Gene Sarazen.

He commented on Ben's round by summing it up as the best round he had ever witnessed as he hit all greens in regulation figures, yes, all 18 greens in regulation figures. A feat that is so rare these days that when Jim Furyk managed it the other day it was instant news.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if  both he and Sam were playing today they would still be winning tournaments, such was their ability to control a golf ball.

Just one of the reasons why Hogans my pick, spooky John I  watched that dvd again quite recently.

Not spooky at all Dave. just shows the quality ofplay this man could produce, with the so called inferior equipment of the day.

Not once did he have to scramble for a par on a course that was very long.

Nicholas, David Duval  is indeed a fine player but I doubt we will see him return to the standard he reached a few years ago.

Tiger is still not at the top of the records yet, so cannot claim the title at present, but then golf can be evaluated by many different means. As a scoring machine over four rounds he is undoubtedly one of the best, as he wins a lot of tournaments, but this is all down to his short game skills, especially his putting. He is very loose off the tee and does not hit as many greens in regulation to be called the best in my opinion.

Tom Watson showed this year that the old players can certainly hold their own when they need to, as did Greg Norman last year. Tiger did not even make the cut.

If you look at the whole field in a tournament you will find that half the field would not even be scratch were they amateur golfers.

You are all being sold this marketing hype with the new technology, year on, yet if this were really the case then we would all be hitting the ball 400 yards, as each year they claim more and more distances for balls and clubs.

To me the pleasure in this game is in the shotmaking. That alone is what gives the satisfaction. Very few modern players have this ability, they are all too mechanical.

Disagree completely, jonny, as you know I would.

Those that turned to professional golf to make a living in those old days could all play the game to a very high standard. There may be bigger fieldds now,. but it is not all top quality and if thy were amateurs half of them would not even keep a scratch handicap.

I have no interest in how long the pros take to complete there rounds asa they are playing for money, but there is no excuse for the amatuer player to take as long as it does these days.

Nothing to do with rose tinted spectacles, jonny, I lived and played through this period so my knowledge is first hand, not from some history book.

I played a three ball this morning with one being a lady and it took exactly 3 hours and five minutes.

Of course we can have this discussion as friends jonny, did not think otherwise.

I feel you are looking at the statistics in a different manner to what I would, as statistics do not always prove what you wish them to prove.

You have not factored into the equation that the greatest influence on lower scoring is not because of better equipment, but because of better and truer greens than what was avaliable yesteryear.

I used to play with a cigarette in my mouth and strange enough it does not affect the swing one iota.

The courses these days are manicured to the finest condition for all professional tournaments. It is a pity they don't maintain this standard for the average club golfer.

You quoted the Masters, no rough whatsoever, its only defence is the speed of the greens and the severe slopes on them.

The game  today is completely different, the emphasis being on blasting the ball miles, hitting to very receptive greens which require no shotmaking skill whatsoever.

Hogan and Snead were both long enough n the fifties to have more than held their own in todays tournamnets, and the reason I say that is because they could keep the ball on the fairway and hit the green in regulation far more than what this current crop can do.

Tournaments are won by the best putter over the four days and Tiger is noted for his ability to hole putts of some distance under pressure.

I have read plenty to indicate that the players in the 50's and 60's had great ballstriking, but having stood behind Tiger and watched him smack 100's of balls (cuts, draws, high ones, soft ones, low runs, spinny ones) I know he can do anything with a golf ball so I see no huge difference in ability between him and various great strikers of the past and it seems he gets an unfair rap sometimes.

If that were true, jonny then he would never be in the tress off the tee, would he?

There are many pros with as a good a striking abillity and shotmaking as Tiger, he wins because he has the temperament and this uncanny ability to hole out pretty much everything when under pressure.

I lived in Spain for three years and my local pro, Juan Parron, was the best striker of a ball I have ever seen. I played around 70 rounds of golf with him over the three years that I lived there and he hit every fairway and every green every time we played. This made the par for him 68 as opposed to 72 because he always hit the par fives in two shots.

I used to say to him why on earth are you not on the tour making a fortune, his ability was that good. He said to me, John, I play in my National, The Spanish Open, but I seem to go to pieces. It is easy playing my own course all the time.

Nicholas, at this moment in time he is still behnd Jack Nicklaus and Sam Snead in number of wins, I assume that is what yopu are basing you thoughts on.

Yes, he has achieved these fantastic stats over a shorter period of time but then there are many more tournaments now than  there were in those golden days.

Tiger is certainly leading the stats as the best scrambler (Check that out if you like) which means that he is not the best overall accurate striker that has graced this wonderful game of ours.

I see this game differently to you jonny, I am a great enthusiast for those who could control a golf ball and for me, those who hit greens in regulation deserve the accolades more than those who have to scramble their way round.

I think Tiger is great and am a huge supporter of him in tournaments, but many times I have sat glued to the TV watching his playing partners hit the ball better only for him to get up and down on the strength of his putting.

The professional game is all about putting, as is the amateur game.

Jonny,

The figures you list for the Masters and your point (see, not used the word argument) have a flaw. Tiger's low scoring is taken into account with the 'present', yet the average is only 5 shots better. And the length of the course against par is different now too. Also in the 50's not as many of the Worlds top players got an invite so the worst scores were always high. If you also look at one of my previous comments Augusta has been well watered from Day 1. Take a look at the scores at any one of our Open venues and see if you get the same spread.

It is impossible to say who is "The Greatest" when you have so many different elements effecting results.

TheLyth

There is no doubt that he is the the player of the present, but it is wrong to suggest that players of yesteryear would not have held their own with him, after all Henry Cotton shot a 65 at Royal St.Georges in 1934, a real golf course.

Both Snead and Nicklaus have won more tournaments.

Of course the object of the game is "How many" as opposed to "How", but I know what level of skill I would rather play this game with and that is being able to do what was intended in the first place. Hit the greens in the allocation awarded to the par given.

Hogan made one visit to this country and won the Open on a link course. I am quite sure that he did not hate that victory.

We have played together, jonny and you know as well as I do that you are the Hogan and I am the Tiger and it must surely get to you when you make a legitimate par with good striking and accuracy only to see me produce the same score with a lousy drive but good scrambling. I would rather be able to play like you do.

I am not disputing the quality of Tiger, his record speaks for itself, just saying that over the years there have been many great players of this game and the skill level between them is so narrow it is not worth discussing, or in the least, getting worked up over it.

This game is about "How many", I agree, but satisfaction comes with the purity of the strike, not in holing a thirty foot putt as we all know that has an element of good fortune with it.

Greg lost a couple of majors, not becaue of his poor play but because of bad luck when his opponents did something completely out of the ordinary, Bob Tway and Larry Mize. Those two incidents alone tells one how unfair and cruel this game can be, and also that statistics do not always tell the tale.

Then I suggest you start worrying about fairways and GIR as that is the best route to making easy pars and birdies. Once cannot rely on always getting up and down in two or chipping in.

What critiria do you use to come up with the answer to "Who is the greatest ever Golfer"?

There are so many different elements that there can be only one real answer. Your own choice under your critiria.

JohnP says that some of todays guys wouldn't even have been a scratch golfer in the 50's & 60's. TRUE. With todays technology a guy doesn't have to hit the ball in the middle of the club to get 'results', he only needs to be a goodgreat putter. Also todays Tour guys can devote more time to the game because again in the 50's & 60's there wasn't any European Tour Players, they were ordinary Pro's who got together to play a Tournament.

Americans designed there courses to be wide open and kept in soft condition. It depended on the Pin position where you needed to hit your Tee-shot so they didn't need to be acurate off the Tee. Here in Europe, our course designs needed acurate Tee-shots and the ability to 'run' the ball in because our courses were not kept soft. Players who got the chance to cross the Atlantic found a very different type of course layed before them, so high scores. Todays courses are similar in all parts of the world.

There is no doubt that Tiger is the 'Best' Golfer today but even he struggles to control the ball when he goes for the 'Big Draw', a thing that the 'Best' back in the 50's & 60's wouldn't have because the clubs of the time allowed the ball to be hit ALL WAYS.

Using scores from The Masters also shows that Olly won in 1999 with the same score that won it in 1940, 1941 & 1942 (280).

TheLyth

How I wish I could write like you, Lyth. I agree with everything you have just said.

Hogans swing caused his problems, not his Ball Striking.

There are a lot of good Ball strikers out there , who can't keep the ball on the course.

TheLyth

Not in my book.

Good Ball Striking is hitting the ball in the middle of the sweet-spot and so getting a "Fizz" as it leaves the clubface. Not hitting it out of the toe on a modern club and landing on the fairway first and then the green in regulation when you hit your second shot also off center.

TheLyth

That shows good Ball Striking.

If you can't see anything here, its also on "My Profile".

TheLyth

In the 60's and 70's with the "Wound Ball" and Wooden Woods a good Ball Striker could hit a Driver that fizzed off low for between 100 and 150yds before the Back-spin took effect and the ball rose up to the apex of its flight. Wonderful to watch, even better to hit. This shot can't be hit with modern equipment.

Jack Nicklaus knew when a ball was struck well and only then would he say "Good Shot".

TheLyth

I can remember that flight shape, Lyth, but it seems such a long while ago now.

Modern drivers don't have grooves like the old ones, so don't generate as much back-spin. The benefit of that shot is that it penetrates into a wind better than other shapes.

There is nothing to say that Tiger is not working with Nike to produce a modern driver that is as "workable" as the old ones. Tiger is trying to bring parts of the 'Old Game' into his.

"Himself" was able to put check-side on his short shots by working his hands. What would Tiger be able to do if he could make the ball check left or right, or spin back or go forward at will.

I once spent hours on a Practice Ground trying to get a Hook-Fade shot that Christie could hit (at times). Did manage it a couple of times, when I found the Secret to it.

TheLyth

This kind of shot can only be produced by the longer clubs with little loft. When it rises, it is not ballooning but still boring into the wind.

With a tee shot, the length will be better than one that is hit on a normal trejectory and with the long iron the idea is to penetrate the wind, reach the green, yet still be able to stop it.

As an addition in reference to the Lyth's check shots on landing. I used to play a cut up shot with my Sand Wewge which required a very steep downswing to take the bounce of the wedge out of the equation. It was a verry wristy shot but one that saved me many many shots over the years. This shot used to check quickly and spin slightly to the right.

I now cannot play this shot anymore as I started to shank it and with that my confidence has been shattered.

Snead has won the most tournaments. Nicholas.

What about Byron Nelson's record.

Byron Nelson's 1945 Tournament Results

• Jan. 5-8, Los Angeles: 71-72-70-71--284, second
• Jan. 12-14, Phoenix Open: 68-65-72-69--274, first, won by 2
• Jan. 18-21, Tucson: 67-68-67-67--269, second
• Jan. 26-28, Texas Open: 67-66-68-68--269, second
• Feb. 1-4, Corpus Christi Open: 66-63-65-70--264, first, won by 4
• Feb. 9-11, New Orleans Open: 70-70-73-71--284, first, won by 5
• Feb. 16-18, Gulfport: 69-68-72-66--275, second
• Feb. 23-25, Pensacola: 69-69-71-65--274, second
• March 1-4, Jacksonville: 68-66-72-69--275, sixth
• March 8-11, Miami International Four-Ball: first (team tournament)
• March 16-19, Charlotte Open: 70-68-66-68--272, first, won by 4
• March 23-25, Greater Greensboro Open: 70-67-68-66--271, first, won by 8
• March 30-April 1, Durham Open: 71-69-71-65--276, first, won by 5
• April 5-8, Atlanta Open: 64-69-65-65--263, first, won by 9
• June 7-10, Montreal Open: 63-68-69-68--268, first, won by 10
• June 14-17, Philadelphia Inquirer: 68-68-70-63--269, first, won by 2
• June 29-July 1, Chicago Victory National Open: 69-68-68-70--275, first, won by 7
• July 9-15, PGA Championship: first (match play)
• July 26-29, Tam O'Shanter Open: 66-68-68-67--269, first, won by 11
• Aug. 2-4, Canadian Open: 68-72-72-68--280, first, won by 4
• Aug. 16-19, Memphis: 69-73-66-68--276, fourth
• Aug. 23-26, Knoxville Invitational: 67-69-73-67--276, first, won by 10
• Aug. 31-Sept. 3, Nashville: 70-64-67-68--269, second
• Sept. 6-9, Dallas: 72-70-71-68--281, third
• Sept. 13-16, Tulsa: 73-69-75-71--288, fourth
• Sept. 19-23, Esmeralda Open: 66-66-70-64--266, first, won by 7
• Sept. 27-30, Portland: 71-71-67-66--275, second
• Oct. 4-7, Tacoma: 70-69-73-71--283, ninth
• Oct. 11-14, Seattle Open: 62-68-63-66--259, first, won by 13
• Dec. 14-16, Glen Garden Open: 72-65-66-70--273, first, won by 8

Amongst that lot he won 11 in a row.

Look at his scores in 1945 and then try and tell me that players of that era would not hold there own in the modern game. You can't, so don't even attempt to try.

jonny, I don't even think the old time greats would need the advantages you claim for the modern equipment.

They all learned how to master and control a golf ball with more flair and imagination that we do not see these days. Seve was the last of the flair players.

Nicholas, yardages of courses mean very little. Wentworth is no more diffcult now than it was forty years ago.

All the pros are capable of hitting 13 and 15 at Augusta in two shots, as they have always been able to do, so what is your problem.

Do you play golf? or are you just a  wind up merchant.

Jonny,

To win 11 tournaments on the trot and 18 in one season is a "fantastic" (sorry Seve) achievement. It doesn't matter who was playing or how strong the fields were. Its like saying Harringtons USPGA win is not an achievement because Tiger didn't play. A win is a win.

Nicholas,

Course yardage means nothing when comparing the 1940's against today. Technology has increased the distance a Ball goes more than courses have been lengthened. In the mid 1970's I was looked upon as "One of the longest hitters in Europe" and I had begun using a Graphite shaft, yet it was a BIG DRIVE that got past 300yds. Today on Tour you are classed as a short hitter if you don't average that. 

John and I (plus others on here) could name Golfers that most of you have never heard of who could beat the pants off some of todays world top 50. How many of this 1946 Open Championship list have people heard of?

SNEAD, LOCKE, Von NIDA, COTTON, REES, DALY, BRADSHAW, SHANKLAND, WHITCOMBE, Percy ALLISS, COMPSTON, LEES, JACOBS, PERRY, HALIBURTON, PADGHAM, & BULLOCK.

TheLyth

Played a round at Muswell Hill G.C. with Bobby Locke, played nine holes with Henry Cotton at Sotogrande (Now Valderama) Bill Shankland was the pro at Potters Bar when I used to caddie there and play with the young assistant named Tony Jacklin, Percy Allis (Father of Peter) was a close friend of my grandfather. Dai Rees presented me with the trophy when I won the "Courage Trophy" at Calcot park many moons ago.

Only Bullock does not ring a bell with me.

You are right, Lyth, we all seem to forget the talent that has made this game what it is today, although we now have players earning a respectable living without having anywhere near the playing ability of those you have just mentioned.

Why is it silly, jonny, when 90% of the USPGA field are only there to make up the numbers anyway.

We have watched enough golf on TV to see that a large proportion of the field cannot even  play to par. All we see is the leaderboard and assume that the whole field is of this quality, well I'm afraid it isn't.

So is Paul Lawrie, so what are you attempting to prove, that he is now better than Tiger because he finished in front in one tournament.

The modern game is about belting it as far as you can and holing as many putts as you can, why you are trying to get me to believe that the modern players is far superior to the older ones I just don't understand. I have seen both and I know where my views lie.

The same can be said of football, the game is so much faster because the players are now athletes. Only a few have the skill to make the game worth watching, whereas in the old days players had ball skills that we will never see again.

I cannot believe we have professional footballers who can only kick a ball with one foot. I could use both feet well enough for you to be unable to tell which was my dominant foot, all this at the age of seven.

You have been reading too much Bob Rotella, jonny, lighten up.

I don't think one can compare golf with sports that can be improved by sheer physical training. Golf is a game of technique, concentration and nerve.

As to the records you claim are being broken all the time, Johnsons 400m record has been around for 10 years, KIpketers 800m record for 12 years. High jump 1993, Pole Vault 1994. Tripe Jump, our own Jonathan Edwards since 1995, Both the disus and hammer 1986, not much progression there.

For the women it is even worse all the sprints go back to 1988/85/83

I have not said that golfers have regressed in ability, what I have said is that the modern player plays the game entirely different to those of yesteryear and the good players of those days would have no trouble whatsoever competing in the modern game.

You have seen me play, jonny, so how about a bet. Place me down the fairway the average distance of the modern pro and I will bet you that I can go round in par.

OK, jonny we are getting closer and closer as the debate progresses, but please explain to me why the current worlds best player spends so much time in the trees off the tee with the ability to produce every kind of shot at will.

All pro tournaments are won by the person who putts the best, it is the only department of the game that can lower the scores of anyone.

Re the bet, you are now hedging, come on, be a sport give me what I asked for.

Yardage is not that important to someone who can hit the ball a long way but at 72 I am not very strong.

Did you watch the British Open in 2000 John? Tiger hit 91% of the fairways over 4 days at the Old Course, St Andrews. He also manged to play 4 rounds without hitting a bunker such was his perfect accuracy from the tee and with his approaches. I defy you to tell me that isn't special.

Pretty wide fairways there though jonny and was that not the championship where he took many irons off the tee strictly to avoid the bunkers.

Bringing up Hogans sorties into the trees was not at a time when he was top of the world, unlike our Tiger. The fact that Tiger can be so wild at times yet still manages to win does suggest the quality of the field is not that strong.

Going back to Byron Nelson, his 112 rounds that year only contained five over 72. Now that is impressive in any era.

Pretty impressive stats and that is why he won. What was his excuse for not making the cut at Turnberry then.

I know that only to well, jonny, but bad rounds from the pros make no difference to them.

Us amateurs on the other hand have our handicpas put up, not by much I know under this present ridiculous handicap system.

You have moved down rather rapidly I notice, since joining Chipping Norton. Well done, even more shots you have to give me now next time we play.

I really shoudn't respond to such idiotic post like yours, Nicholas, but it is obvious that you are a fan of Tiger, as we all are, but fail to recognise the abilities of golfers that you have never heard of.

As it happens I have played Bethpage, not the black obviously. Do you know where it is?

As to the Ryder cup his matchplay record is not that impressive is it. so not the grand master that you are trying to stuff down my throat.

I will ask you again. Do you play golf?

Now to some facts as that is what you are basing your thoughts on. Tiger is still not the number one in tournament wins, he currently lies third and until such time as he makes number one in that respect then he cannot and you cannot claim him to be the best ever. Of the current crop he is certainly way out in front, I agree.

Nicholas,

Why have you got a thing about course yardage?

Bethpage Black was 7426yds for the 2009 US Open, but doesn't play that in everyday use. Carnoustie was 7252yds for the 1968 Open and 7421yds for 2007.

A lot of golfers play a course, then see it host the Open and think it the same place they played. How wrong they are. The Championship Tee on the 13th at Royal Birkdale and the one on 18th too, confront the player with a 250yd carry to reach the fairway. This is normal, so beware yardage isn't everything.

TheLyth

I have just done some number crunching.

If Modern Technology allows a golfer to gain 15% in yardage (270yds to 312yds ave driving didtance) over guys from the 60's and before, plus the change from Small Ball to Big Ball along with more watering systems in use. Courses need to be 10% longer today to keep up. Here are a few facts:-

MUIRFIELD 1948 6926yds, Add 10% = 7619yds

CARNOUSTIE 1953 7252yds, Add 10% = 7977yds

LYTHAM 1958 6635yds, Add 10% = 7299yds

St ANDREWS 1960 6635yds, Add 10% = 7299yds

BIRKDALE 1961 6844yds, Add 10% = 7528yds

So the question is, "Are the Courses keeping up with Technology?"

TheLyth

Nicholas,

Be very careful of facts.

FACT ONE - Tom Morris Jnr, whose name was the first engraved on 'The Claret Jug' died at the age of 24 after winning 4 Open Championships in a row.

FACT TWO - Bobby Jones retired from Golf at the age of 28yrs with 13 Majors to his name, Tiger had only 11 by that age.

FACT THREE - Both Harry Varden and Walter Hagen had to contend with WW1 in their time.

TheLyth

You are entitled to your opinion, jonny. Doesn't say much for the strength and depth of the field today if old Tom can almost win the Open at his age.

Todays fields are stronger, simply because there are more World Players in them. If 150 Tee off, 150 have a chance to win but if you take a field of the worlds best against a field containing 50% of the worlds best and 50% also rans it will be stronger.

TheLyth

Almost!!   This is a debate that will roll on and on as there is not a correct answer. It is a matter of opinion.  I think Tiger is the best thing to happen to the game for a long time but there are many players worthy of being called great..most of them mentioned above!

If you don't honestly believe that to be the case then you really have disappointed me, jonny. Only good putting will ever win a tournament.

If you remember watching Tom in the Open yo will have to recognise that he putted extremely solidly for three days, just slipped a little on the last day.

Jonny,

I don't know how old you are but during the 60's & 70's it was said by most Golfers "The winner this week will be the guy who holes most Putts". The reason was that nearly all the top Golfers of that time (Pro and Am) hit most fairways and GIR. It was Seves arrival in 1976 that brought the Scrambling Effect into Golf. If Nicklaus or Palmer shot a 66, they would have had about 30putts, Today 30putts usually goes with a score of around a 70.

TheLyth

Now you are being ridiculous, jonny, come on behave yourself. Brad Faxon is indeed a great putter, so it is obvious to me, as it should be to you, that if he is not winning, then his overall game is not up to scratch.

The Lyth points this out in graphic form.

I don't have a greatest player, there have been so many wonderful players over the years and I have taken something from all of them, be it their smooth swings, their temperament, their ability to hole those clutch putts as well as their ability to close a tournament. All of the best players have these qualities.

Personal favourites, to name a few are Henry Cotton, Bobby Locke, Peter Thomson, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Gary Player Seve and many others.

Of the current crop then Tiger is way ahead of anyone, not for his purity of strike but for his ability to do all of the things I listed more times than the others and I am sure you will be proved right in that he will eventually break all the records that are still standing.

Just for you jonny, the reason you are not yet scratch is because you do not hit enough greens in regulation figures.

"For me, I think Tiger will go down as the greatest player in history by the time he is done playing. His record shows he has the best winning percentage over all past previous games, and if he peaks in his late 30's and 40's like Hogan did - then he stil has around 8 years before he finds his game and reaches his best - what a proposition!

I also think he has done wonders to make golf the global game it is today, and I think this is going to only grow further through the years - making golf acessable for all ages, races and sexes.

My personal soft spot though is probably for Benny Hogan for everythiung he overcame to be the player he was, and for the sheer yearshe ploughed into his game. Plus I love his swing!

I only wish I'd have seen him play."

 I agree with all of this.

One of the many others I mentioned, jonny, he won many tournaments during his career. There have been so many good players over the years that it is hard to recall all of their names until someone comes up with it.

I think the difference between then and now is that with the better quiality putting surfaces we are seeing good rounds compiled when the general play is not up to the normal standard.

I know that I have hit 18 greens in regulation quite a few times, when I was a good player, but we don't see it very often now, do we.

I also think that the mentality of the players has changed a lot too.

It used to be - Hit the fairway - Hit the Green - Hole the Putt.

Now its - Cut it down the right side to leave a shot at the pin - leave it short right of the pin to leave an up hill putt.

Some of todays players can't hit an approach shot anywhere near the pin if they don't know the exact yardage. They would hit a 5iron on a 150yd par 3 if they were told the pin was 220yds away. Even Seve got it wrong sometimes, he once hit a full 9iron for his 2nd at Moortowns 18th, finished 100yds over the green because he was given wrong yardage. He said afterwards it looked too much, but he trusted his yardage. But he was given the yardage from another bunker.

TheLyth

Jonny,

Hogan may have looked at it that way but how many others did. I mixed with 100's of Professional Golfers and we all took the attitude that the way to succeed was "Keep it on the fairways so it's easier to get it on the Greens, then hole your putts". We knew that up hill putts were best and that certain pin positions could be better approached from wide. An example of this was the 18th at Moor Allerton. Players aimed at the 11th Green to get a better angle of attack, the Club planted trees to stop it though.

Did Hogen bother if his approach was 142yds against 148yds, or did he just look at it and think it was a 7iron?

Oh, and another thing from the past. What would todays players do with 'The Stymie Rule?' which only left the game in 1952.

TheLyth

Tiger said something very interesting in his interview after the Tour Championship.

He said he could now move the ball both ways and control its trajectory. What have Nike come up with? because to do that is almost impossible with the latest equipment, even for Tiger.

TheLyth

Jonny,

You show your Hcp at 7.5. Can you hit your Driver HighlowLtoR & RtoL at will, to order?

Tiger struggles Big Time when he tries to hit his driver with a big slinging draw, so he hits his 3wood. He also uses the same club to hit his stinger, then in goes his 5wood for the high stopping shot. All of a sudden he says he can hit all these shots with the driver, now I think that is difficult with the modern Driver. For me to feel comfortable hitting these shots I would want a Steel 'X' Shaft in my Driver. So I ask, have Nike put a shaft that works similar to a Steel 'X' Shaft into Tigers Driver.

TheLyth

Lyth

without sounding big headed here but i can move the ball both ways with my driver, also high and low shots depending on wind ect.

i can also move the ball with my 3/5 wood, with my irons i can draw the ball at will with ease but i find it hard to fade the ball

my only problem is a lot of the time i am not sure on just how much fade/draw i am going to get

regards

darren

I have great admiration for any player, let alone an amateur who can move the ball in any required direction with these modern drivers.

Jonny,

The only grudge I have with the Tour Guys is that I am no longer able to play along side them. I could teach a few of them a thing or two.

If you and Darren say you have total control of your Driver then you should be hitting 100% FIR and from there 100% GIR or playing off a Plus Hcp. But you aren't, so you can't have total control. The Tour guys only hit 80-85% FIR and a similar percentage of GIR so mustn't have total control either.

If you look at the make up of the different shafts you can see why I ask the question, have Tiger and Nike found a special type of shaft for Tiger if he now has total control of his Driver? I have spoken to a number of my old friends and they agree that you can get fitted for a Driver that hits the ball one way, but then when you try and hit it the other way, its difficult and they struggle. Just like Tiger has been.

My "Stock" shot with my 10.5* 460cc Driver is straight, I can turn it RtoL at will (draw) but I struggle when I try to slide it LtoR. It becomes a push. On the other hand, my 8.5* 400cc Driver (same make) can be hit LtoR at will but I struggle when trying to hit a draw. So its not my swing that makes it difficult to hit my Drivers both ways its The Club set-up. The 10.5 is 2* 'shut' and the 8.5 is 'square'.

Oh, and those 'Clinics'. Have you seen Noel Hunt or David Edwards? they make Seve's 1iron from a deep Green-side bunker look tame.

TheLyth

LYTH

We didnt say we have total control of our drivers we stated that we can move the ball left 2 right and vice versa should we want to

i am not hitting 100% fir and gir simply because if i was then i would be where the pros are this is why i am a 10 handicapper because i am too inconsistant as at the moment i am drawing/pulling the ball with my driver when i am trying to hit it straight

i try to hit it straight as most of the holes i have played allow me to but when faced with a dog-leg tee shot either left or right or right to left i can shape the ball accordingly and as i have stated some of the time i cannot gauge how much draw/fade i will get from the shot

as i say can i move the ball laft to right - YES can i move the ball right to left - YES can i hit a low shot into the wind - YES can i hit a high shot - YES

do i know exactly how much to allow for all these shots - NO Hence a 10 handicap

Regards

Darren

I have seen you swing, Darren, and I have no doubt that you can work the ball any way you wish, as your swing is one of the best I have seen in a long while.

Probably the reason you are still struggling to get to your brothers standard is because your short game and course management are not what they should be.

john

the main reason martin has a better standard than me he plays 3/4 times a week and although not the longest he can hit the ball straight most of the time

one of my main problems is when trying to play "more conservative" by taking a 3wood/iron from the tee i make the ultimate schoolboy error and dont hit the fairway or put it in play (something i am working on at the range) i played on saturday at retford golf club and i had 5 blobs all resulting from poor tee shots and i still managed to score 30 points showing when i can get the ball where i want i can score well