Would Old Dead Guy circa course conditions require different player than today?

[Mike_Young]

As a disciple of the ODG's but one without the ability to contact them on a consistent basis  (I think I did see Donald Ross sitting outside a gay bar in Pinehurst one evening waiting on some Paul guy from Philly)....
How much did consistent conditions affect the type of talent that won golf championships then as to now.
Todays conditions are so perfect that putting can be much more critical than when conditions varied so much from green to green and course to course that it did not contribute to the overall score as consistently as it would today..thus allowing the better shotmakers and ballstrikers an advantage.......because of inconsistencies in greens there was a much higher percentage of luck involved than today.....IMHO irrigation has done much more to influence the game than any other improvement....most ODG courses only had a short time of being in their best condition during any year.....and in areas such as the south fairways could be bare ..yet allow a ball to travel 300 yards....rough could be higher throughout the land yet be easier than today.....have better conditions defined the make up of the modern player and how would the modern player fare in the ODG conditions.....I say they would get beat by the players of that era...except for Tiger.....

[Jeff_Mingay]

Damn!

I was gonna say except for Tiger 

[Mike_Young]

Damn!

I was gonna say except for Tiger 

I beat you to it...

[Joe Hancock]

That is surprising....I mean that you think today's conditions are better.... not that you were meeting some guy from Philly and Donald Ross at a gay bar....

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

MY,

Tough question, because it presumes that today's players couldn't adapt to different conditions.  Not once a year in the Open or at the Ryder Cup, but over time, I think they would, no?  If they grew up with it, or if it just happened over night?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I can't agree, the amount of talent today's players possess would surface, no matter the conditions, and vice versa, just think of a Ben Hogan playing today. Whoa, golf would be outpacing Nascar. 
   

[Rob Rigg]

Mike,

Are they just dealing with the course conditions or the equipment as well?

If they were dealing with old purse conditions that would be even more entertaining . . .

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'd say it would take one of today's good tour pros less than 20 minutes to adjust to the playing conditions of the ODGs. 

[Mike_Young]

My point is that the percentage of the game related to putting skills would diminish based on the conditions....so mechanized putting skills on perfect surfaces would not consume as much of the total score as tey do now...thus the all striking and overall scoring abilities would be a higher percentage of the game than today....no doubt guys would adjust but different guys would be winning....

[Ronald Montesano]

What in the hades is ODG?

[Sam Morrow]

What in the hades is ODG?

Old Dead Guys

[RJ_Daley]

I think Mike is right that 'different' guys would be winning.  It seems to me that as talented as today's players are, they are more skittish (not Scottish) and prone to collapsing at the slightest of condition changes.  They don't seem to be as adaptable, and look for those perfect conditions of puting surfaces, or B&I performance to match their finery of skills.  Once they get out of their perfectly honed rythms and routines due to outside influences of conditions of the playing surface, or interrelationship of weather conditions to maintenance meld of playing surfaces, they don't seem to have the adaptablility, generally speaking.

But, with time, and use of old equipment limitations, on the more inconsistent playing swards of FW and Green performances, the really great players would adapt rapidly with practice.  The cream always comes to the top.  But, just the way the head healers approach the psychological aspects of the game, and the pampered ambiance of todays modern course presentations, and all the attendent butt kissing the pros receive while in competition, probably would be a hinderance to them if they had to adapt to the overall conditions and atmosphere of the pro game back in the ODG era.  IMHO....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Skittish: what happens to you when you are playing for 65x the amount of money now vs. then.

In 1940 Hogan was the money leader with $10,665.00, that equates to approx. $161.822.33 in today's dollars. Tiger won $9,941,563.00 in '06, the equivalent amount in 1940 would be $690,386.32

Only three of the top 22 money winners in '08 were in the top 22 in putting stats. 

[Chris Cupit]

Mike,
I can't agree, the amount of talent today's players possess would surface, no matter the conditions, and vice versa, just think of a Ben Hogan playing today. Whoa, golf would be outpacing Nascar. 
   

As a Texan it kills me to say it but I am not sure the game will ever be suited to the 5' 8", 135-140 pound guy any more.  I know he was considered a longish hitter for his time and playing conditions and I do think that generally champions from one era have the mental make up to be champions of any other era but, more and more, physical build, strength and athleticism are taking hold of golf.

I think if Hogan had been born in 1975 and had tried to compete, he would  have become a "gym rat" to keep up with the others.  Without doing that though the closest he would come to Tiger is carrying the bag.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chris,
Did I say BEN Hogan?, I meant HULK Hogan. 

No doubt Ben would probably have to bulk up, but he wouldn't need platform spikes. 5'8" and 135/140 is a bit small, but these guys aren't much larger and they did OK in '08 (all top 20 money)


Kim 5' 10" -160
Villegas 5'9" -160
Leonard 5'9" -170
Weir 5'9" -155
Imada 5'8"-150
Immelman 5'9" -170

..and of course Pavin 5' 9" -155 at 112 on the money list

Hidemichi Tanaka, at 5'6" -136 had to one of the smallest modern players, along with Ian Woosnam at 5' 4.5" (that's how it's listed) and 168 lbs.

[TEPaul]

"What in the hades is ODG?"

Ronald:

Not a bad question and Old Dead Guys does seem vaguely redundant, doesn't it? 

But the real problem is we are supposed to know all these damn acronyms for everthing! And for this I now accuse Mike Young of not being a true blue purist, because if he really was in the title to this thread he would've thought to just type out OLD DEAD GUYS!

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
I checked, but ODG isn't listed here: http://www.acronymfinder.com/

I added it to their list. 

[Mike_Young]

"What in the hades is ODG?"

Ronald:

Not a bad question and Old Dead Guys does seem vaguely redundant, doesn't it? 

But the real problem is we are supposed to know all these damn acronyms for everthing! And for this I now accuse Mike Young of not being a true blue purist, because if he really was in the title to this thread he would've thought to just type out OLD DEAD GUYS!

TP....what are you talking about?

[Chris Cupit]

Chris,
Did I say BEN Hogan?, I meant HULK Hogan. 

No doubt Ben would probably have to bulk up, but he wouldn't need platform spikes. 5'8" and 135/140 is a bit small, but these guys aren't much larger and they did OK in '08 (all top 20 money)


Kim 5' 10" -160
Villegas 5'9" -160
Leonard 5'9" -170
Weir 5'9" -155
Imada 5'8"-150
Immelman 5'9" -170

..and of course Pavin 5' 9" -155 at 112 on the money list

Hidemichi Tanaka, at 5'6" -136 had to one of the smallest modern players, along with Ian Woosnam at 5' 4.5" (that's how it's listed) and 168 lbs.

Great point but I do think 25 years ago all pro golfers seemed to be 5' 9" and 160 pounds (people used to marvel at Palmer's strength and Nicklaus' size when they were playing and they aren't really big guys) and the "big" guy was almost thought to be at a disadvantage.

Today, it seems like the long, tall, lean college kid is the new "proto type".

But, as you pointed out, those "smurfs" have plenty of game as well

[Bill_McBride]

I have to somewhat respectfully disagree.  I think the BEST players in each era won.  The best players sometimes seem to be the luckiest but it's because they are always hanging around the top of the leaderboard or winning most of the matches.  Even if the conditions weren't the best in the '20s, Bob Jones still won the most because he rose to the occasion.

Isn't that what Vardon, Hagen, Jones, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus and Woods have in common?   They did whatever it took to win.

Or I could be all wet!

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
I don't disagree that the best would rise but I think many guys that win today would have never een heard of then.....I don't know if such a statistic exist but if a guy in 1940 had a 72 scoring average and a guy had a 72 scoring average today.....I bet the guy today made many more 15 foot putts in his average round than in 1940....thus in my mind he would have been a better master of the all round game.....

[Melvyn Morrow]

The Best Players in each era won – well said Bill and I think you are right.

They mastered the course, the equipment and conditions available to them I their day.

I have one question would today’s best golfers rise to the occasion if they found themselves back in the 192-30 or the 1890’s or even the 1870’s. I would suggest the answer is no but I believe the guys from back then could achieve a great deal if allowed to familiarise themselves with today’s courses and equipment.

One reason why I feel modern golfers would not achieve their targets is that they would find it hard to adjust, not just to the courses but the early equipment. Golf has become too easy for them, also their game has been overtaken by the need for distance/yardage and boy would they get a wake up call playing with golfers that did not rely upon it. Which perhaps would not be a bad thing for our modern game?

Melvyn (nearly an ODG - but not just yet)

[paul cowley]

I think its all relative as to the comparative skills of players from different eras....with the main difference....scoring.....attributed to newer/better equipment and course conditions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Melvyn,
I'm sure you've been out to the links and gotten up close to the action. The sound of a Pro hitting an iron should be enough, never mind witnessing their control, to dispel any misgivings you might have as to the quality of the player.  How can anyone realistically single out Pro golfers of today as the only sportsmen who would somehow suck if they had to go back 60/70/80/90/100 years and play against their brethren? I can't think of another.
 
Mike,
If the greens are so much better today than they were in the ODG era putting should be much easier for everyone, thereby making the rest of the game more important today then it ever was.