Ben Crenshaw shows why the "Bigger/stronger/faster" will never take over golf

[Jim Nugent]

Ben Crenshaw's performance yesterday reminded me of a theme that came up not so long ago here in the treehouse.  

A 54 year old man is in 8th place at one of golf's four biggest events.  He beat the world number one, who is by far the most dominating player in the world, and probably of all time. He beat a number of other top 20 players.  

This could never happen in any sport that requires or rewards athleticism.  Not track and field, swimming, basketball, football, soccer, rugby, gymnastics, tennis.  Not even baseball, where players sit around about 98% of the time and can have more of a role-playing job.

And Ben's performance is not unique.  Champions Tour players place high in PGA events from time to time.  Sam Snead was competitive on tour into his early 60's.  Jack Nicklaus made a number of cuts at the Masters after he was 50, and once even when he was 60.  

To me, more proof of why "bigger/faster/stronger" guys will never take over golf.    

[Matt_Cohn]

Jim, I'm not sure if it was your intent, but it sounds like you're making the "golf isn't a sport" argument. A 54 year old can compete, Nicklaus did this at 60 years old, etc.

Don't you think golf has already been taken over by the bigger, faster, stronger guys on tour? Like...everyone who's ahead of Crenshaw now, and the many more who will be ahead of him by Sunday (Friday?) evening?

"This could never happen in any sport that requires or rewards athleticism." Is that *really* what you think about golf?

[Tim Liddy]

21 putts.

[Chris Kane]

He will not be in 8th place by Sunday night.  "Bigger/stronger/faster" will win out in the long run.

[Mike_Young]

Bigger,faster,stronger has already taken over.  At the end of the 72 holes it just depends on which bigger,faster,stronger player is putting that week.  As Tim Liddy says, 21 putts.  What does bigger faster stronger score with 21 putts....usually 61 or 62.  JMO

[redanman]

Ben Crenshaw shows why the "Bigger/stronger/faster" will never take over golf


One round?

[Ian Andrew]

Bigger stronger and faster is -5

[Jim Nugent]

I agree Ben probably isn't 8th place Sunday night.  What difference does it make?  In sports that reward athletics, no 54 year old could keep up with the world's best at all.  I think Crenshaw beat around half the world's top twenty yesterday.    

You can do it in golf, because running/jumping/strength/size don't mean squat.  

Matt -- I definitely think golf is a sport.  So are things like bowling and billiards.  Have my doubts about curling though.  

[John Nixon]

" I think Crenshaw beat around half the world's top twenty yesterday.  "

Well, "beat" implies some sort of final score. There'll be a final score after three more rounds. Does the team leading after one leg of the 4 x 400 relay get some sort of medal?

[Jim Nugent]

John, put any 54 year old on the earth on the 1st leg of the Olympic 4 x 100 meter relay.  He will be in dead last place when he hands off the baton.  He will be dead last after 1 meter, 2 meters, 5 meters...every step of the way.  He can't compete for one tenth of one second.  That is true of any sport that requires athleticism.

But it's not true of golf.  And no real big/fast guy has ever been a great golfer, to my knowledge.  

We should not count out Ben just yet.  50+ year olds HAVE done well over the full 72 holes.  In 1990 Jack finished 5th, at the age of 50.  In 1998 he finished 6th, at 58.  So a guy near 60 beat almost all of the world's top players, in golf's equivalent of the Olympics or World Series.  

Doesn't that pretty well seal the deal?

[Jason Mandel]

I am at the top of the Ben Crenshaw/Tom Paul fan list this week.  It would be great to see the magic continue.

However, listening to Ben last yesterday afternoon after his round he sounded like a defeated man.  He basically said that he had to play perfect golf today and get every break to shoot that 71.

He was basically saying that the way the course is set up right now with the length its almost impossible for someone like him to win.

Here's hoping the magic continues a few more days

[PThomas]

great for Ben, but twas only the first round!

[redanman]

Curling requires intense fine motor control flexibility and core & quad strength, so wrong there.  

[John Nixon]

Jim,
I'm not counting Ben out, or in, or anywhere in between. I'm just not going to say he "beat" anyone when the tournament is still 75% incomplete.

Maybe the relay analogy wasn't the best one, perhaps a marathon would be better - do we award medals for being in the lead after 6.55 miles of a marathon?  

[Andy Doyle]

I would suggest that there is more to "athleticism" than the ability to jump high and run fast.

Andy

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,
I'm not counting Ben out, or in, or anywhere in between. I'm just not going to say he "beat" anyone when the tournament is still 75% incomplete.

Maybe the relay analogy wasn't the best one, perhaps a marathon would be better - do we award medals for being in the lead after 6.55 miles of a marathon?  

John, afraid the marathon analogy is about the same, to me.  After 6.5 miles of a marathon, I think the best 54 year old runner in the world would probably trail the world's top runners by a mile or so.  

I agree there are various types of athleticism.  I specified bigger/faster/stronger in this thread though.  

[Jim Nugent]

Guess who is one under in his second round, through 12 holes?

Charles Coody.  67 (?) years old.  

Hmm.  Time to call Bob Pettit and Bob Cousy out of retirement.  

[tlavin]

The big and/or strong will always have an advantage, as will the clubhead speed freaks, but this tournament is always won by somebody who has a LOT  of short game skill, patience and perseverence.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

To repeat what's been said -- but one round doesn't mean squat.

The bigger / stronger types are moving faster and faster to the point where they do dominate. Unless someone has an uncanny putting week along with a few other miracles like pitch or chip shots that go in -- the frequency of the stronger player is here to stay.

[Kyle Harris]

I agree Ben probably isn't 8th place Sunday night.  What difference does it make?  In sports that reward athletics, no 54 year old could keep up with the world's best at all.  I think Crenshaw beat around half the world's top twenty yesterday.    

You can do it in golf, because running/jumping/strength/size don't mean squat.  

Matt -- I definitely think golf is a sport.  So are things like bowling and billiards.  Have my doubts about curling though.  

I've been taking Curling Lessons for a little over a month now. I've never had a more sore quadricep in my life and the flexibility and balance required is equal to or greater than that of golf.

[A.G._Crockett]

All other things equal, bigger/stronger/faster will beat the smaller/weaker/slower in ANY sport including golf.  I repeat, ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL.  That's the law.

[Jim Nugent]

All other things equal, bigger/stronger/faster will beat the smaller/weaker/slower in ANY sport including golf.  I repeat, ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL.  That's the law.

At halfway point, the 54 year old is now tied for 10th.  The 68-year-old beat or tied over half the field yesterday, including the world number 2.  

No one has explained to me how if bigger/faster/stronger means so much in golf, senior citizens including a guy almost 70 can outplay most of the world's elite players.



 

[Chris Kane]

Jim, have a look at the top 5 players in the world - all of them are big, tall, fit (discounting Mickelson's "subcutaneous fat") guys who hit it miles.

One of the great things about golf is that a 70 year-old on his day can beat the best players in the world - but don't confuse this with the general direction the game is taking.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim, have a look at the top 5 players in the world - all of them are big, tall, fit (discounting Mickelson's "subcutaneous fat") guys who hit it miles.

One of the great things about golf is that a 70 year-old on his day can beat the best players in the world - but don't confuse this with the general direction the game is taking.

Hitting the ball miles has always been an advantage in golf.  And all through golf history most, though not all, of golf's top players have hit it long.  That is nothing recent.  It goes back at least to Bobby Jones' day, and I bet a lot further.  

But smaller guys hit it as far as bigger guys.  Villegas is 5 foot 9 inches, 160 pounds.  Sergio is is 5 foot 10 inches 160.  JB Holmes is 5 foot 11.  Fat guys like Daly hit it further than fit guys, including any of today's top five.

Right now a few bigger guys are at the top.  But I think you are making the mistake, in saying that is a general direction the entire game is taking.  The big guys need to dominate for a much longer time to make that conclusion.  And if you look at the top ten or twenty, there are just as many short hitters as long.  

Faster means nothing in golf.  Stronger can mean something.  But you have to master the nine million other things that make a complete golfer.  And that, IMO, is where bigger and stronger lose out.  All those other things are NOT equal.  Just like wideouts in football are not big...almost no top soccer players are big...point guards in hoops are not big (Magic notwithstanding)...gymnasts are not big...pole vaulters are not big...figure skaters are not big.