We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Were Jack and Arnie at a disadvantage?

Different eras require different ways of looking at things. View them with how they fared against their opponents that were playing under the same conditions.
 
It's all relative. Their competition played with the same equipment
 
Kind of off topic, but I had someone tell me the ball Nicklaus played (whoever the sponsor was MacGregor) was inferior to other options at the time.
 
A lot of comments on fitness in the thread... I agree that most pros now know more about preventing injuries through fitness and diet, but I've watched a lot of old golf on TV... I didn't see guys that were fat and out of shape.
Hogan? Bobby Jones? Snead? Trevino?
Miller Barber? I just didn't notice a bunch of guys that were overweight...

I get the point too about all played the same equipment.... True. Competing against people with same issues.

So, bring a guy like Jack forward. Give him the same "fitness", which is fine because he was a bull, and give him the same talent to be able to stick shots right to a pin with a lower higher lofted club.... Give him today's equipment. Put him on Tour at age 32-33 right now. Does he mop-up the competition???

I say, yes. To do what he did with the higher lofted clubs, you let him hit a wedge instead of 6... He makes these kids look silly today. Heck, he was hitting mushy balls with a persimmon head over 300 on occasion. I'd love to see four top PGA, LPGA, and Web.com players each go at it with equipment from 1985. Balls clubs, shafts, on courses of the same length played back then. I'd love to see what these guys could do, because I'm pretty certain that Jack and Arnie are unstoppable with today's stuff.

Anyway. Curious of what history would show....
 
Were Jack and Arnie at a disadvantage?

jlukes said:
Different eras require different ways of looking at things. View them with how they fared against their opponents that were playing under the same conditions.
Click to expand...

And I think that's what made me think of this premise... Arnie was dominant, then Jack took it to a new level. Greatest ever, arguably. So did the fact that they had to hit a six hold them up vs history? Are guys as good now? They hit higher lofted clubs into greens... They have a larger margin of error... Are they REALLY as good or is equipment more of a factor in their ability? No answer and it's impossible to compare, it just makes me think of how great Jack was because of what he did WHEN he did it, with what he had to be able to do with a ball to keep it on a green...

I know I had a huge advantage hitting a wedge from 150 last week in the city tourney because I watched guys I played against have to hit 8, even 7 to the same greens. They had a MUCH harder time than I did due to loft and margin for error.
 
Jeff Spicoli said:
Kind of off topic, but I had someone tell me the ball Nicklaus played (whoever the sponsor was MacGregor) was inferior to other options at the time.
Click to expand...

Guys said the same thing about equipment Tiger used throughout his dominance. Equipment is a funny thing. Sometimes the "better" option, isn't better for everyone. Plus, I think some people just like to look at someone like Jack or Tiger and say "yeah, this guy is the best ever, but if he did this one thing differently, he'd be even more dominant!"
 
Blazer said:
Versus their competition I think they were at an advantage because of the equipment. IMO modern equipment is more of an equalizer than ever before.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this!!! Ha! Just think of fitting now!!! A million shafts! Back then it was just steel and steel. Flex differences, but not the degree of specialization we have now.
 
To address the fitness discussion. They didint appear to be fat but there is such a thing as skinny fat? I'm 300lbs and can out run my friend who is 165
 
awass17 said:
There is actually a counterargument here that I think many are missing. If a 58/60 degree wedge can go 115 now, isn't it a lot harder to differentiate between hitting it 73 yards and 75 yards? That's the difference between a kick-in birdie and a 25 footer often times.

Not saying the tech isn't a net gain, it so very obviously is. But with greater max distance of each club comes smaller margins between these incremental changes in distances.
Click to expand...
I tend to think of it this way as well, if they can wedge from 150 yards and in today, that's a lot of feel to have mastered in the wedge game, but if Jack and them hit wedges from 80 and in, they probably had the advantage of a little tighter gapping, so they had a disadvantage with long irons at the top of the bag but gained tighter gapping at the bottom of the bag
 
The fitness regiment today's pros practice is extremely different than back in the day. The guy's on tour today are crazy athletic and are much stronger, plus add the stronger lofted clubs.
 
They dominated their era and I don't see how there could be any disadvantage. They both hit the ball a long way during their time. They played the same courses, similar equipment and balls as their opponents. Has the equipment and ball changed and guys hitting the ball longer than when they played? Yes but it's a different era with different technology.
 
BIGBALL said:
True Jrod! Well, you will always have an outlier...

The ball no doubt is the biggest reason for the increased distance, but I still think modern tech, even in similarly lofted blades, has helped some. Better shafts, etc. I would agree with technique, and I would say that is due in large part to technology that wasn't available then. Much more easy to optimize a player now with all the tech that is out there. ( High speed video,Trackman, Flightscope, 3d stuff, etc )
Click to expand...

Would agree 100% on the shaft point as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Every era is different. There is no right, no wrong. No matter the times, every generation had it's great player's, and many of them, and they all played the same equipment on the same course.

My feeling has always been if Jack would have turned pro in 1994/1995, he would have won 25 major's if not more. He is less than 25 strokes from having won 30+.
 
Something that I think gets over looked, since the round from the 80s, we have had 30 more years to understand the swing. He know so much more about the mechanics of the swing. Of course guys are getting better, partly because coaches and clinics are getting smarter.
 
I only hit my 5 iron 190......

but I don't think it's as bad as you think. There are some other factors that play into the game of golf (wind and terrain being two of them) that can affect what club is selected. Not to mention the different type of equipment, especially the ball, and that these guys were getting up there in age. There are some exceptions to the rule but for the most part as these pros age they lose the shot power they once possesed.

So I dont think they were at any disadvantage, nowadays courses are set up to counteract all the new technology. Faster greens, longer courses and limits on equipment help to level everything out. We will be saying the same thing about Tiger in 30 years, what if he had the latest and greatest in 2045, how much better would he have been? It's always going to be questioned for the life of the game of golf.
 
Fitness is a part, yes however I feel instruction is the biggest differentiator here....

A lot of the pros "back in the day" had home-grown swings....today, how many players besides Bubba have a swing where they don't see at least one instructor to consult with on their game?

Disadvantage? Maybe slightly but I don't see it - technology and knowledge changes with the times...
 
JRod said:
Not true.

Mickelson is not "fit" and plays traditionally lofted blades and still hits 200 yard 7 irons.

The biggest difference is the ball and some technique I would say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree but add to that. It's shafts that are the huge difference as well. I saw a thing with Jack and he said he never saw his swing speed until he was well into his Champions tour career and even then he was swinging driver 115 mph.
Back about that time that show was shot True Temper was finally coming to grips with measuring what happens to a shaft in the golf swing and had a whole artical on how they had discovered that better golfers double loaded the shaft. (starting down and at release as we know now.)
That understanding got them building shafts differently and more consistenly and acurately as well. The real understanding of flex and how to use it revolutionized the game. Guys with fitted equipment started playing and dominating the tour and pushed everyone else to move from what felt good to what worked better.

Guys like Jack and Arnie missed all that by a few years in their PGA playing careers. Some guys like Kite got on and rode the curve and I heard he was 4 yards longer off the tee a couple years ago than he was when he was the leading money earner on tour years ago.
 
If the history of golf is summed up only by low scores and driving distances then Jack and Arnie are at a disadvantage. Thankfully the history of golf isn't summed up by that. Jones, Snead, Hogan, Jack, Arnie, Tiger and a select few others in history, took whatever equipment was available at the time and figured out how to use it better than anybody else to accomplish their goals (beating their opponents). That is why they are great. If they would have been born 30 years ago I think they would have done the same thing and still achieved greatness today. Greatness comes from the man/woman, not in a box.
 
I agree that the ball is the key to increased distances.

But, I also look at the caliber of players today. Back in the 50's and 60's, most young athletes were competing in baseball, football, basketball, track, etc... It is only recently, maybe the last 25 years that more guys with athletic ability are turning to golf as their sport of choice. Is it the "Tiger" influence? Is it that the purses and endorsements are so lucrative? I'm not sure, but I see a lot of golfers on tour who might be able to make it in other sports besides golf. I don't think that was true in the 50's and 60's (I know there will be a few exceptions of course).
 
Has anyone shot a 58 on tour lately?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top