Bob Jones

« **on:** January 21, 2009, 08:34:18 PM »

How would Bobby play with the present implements and balls ? And what would this talent have on the design of courses built in his day ?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:40:56 PM »

Just a guess, but I'd assume it wouldn't be too dissimilar from what Tiger does today...

« **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:45:27 PM »

Yeah, I should say that Jones would have still been the best or one of the best. I don't think his talent would have any greater affect on course design today than it did when he was active or when Nicklaus was active, etc. The best will still be the best I don't care what kind of club you put in their hands.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:45:27 PM »

Today I just relived his title defense in the Amateur at Oakmont in 1925 by reading microfilm from the Philadelphia Public Ledger. He didn't just win, but beat people like rented mules. He must have been very good, and would likely do just fine in today's competition and today's equipment!

« **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:52:32 PM »

Well, being about 5 feet 8 inches tall, I don't think that he would have played anything like Tiger, just as a wee Ben Hogan would not have played like Tiger, either. Given Jones' fondness for booze, I'm also guessing that he and Daly would have had more in common than he and Tiger.

Honestly, whether you take my words for their sincerity or something else, who knows? Would Tiger have learned the wristy and flat St. Andrews swing to compete with the Toms, young and old? Would Charles Lindbergh have landed the plane on the Hudson? Who knows, in my book, is followed by chapter two: Who Cares?!

« **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:55:38 PM »

Ok ! But were the "obstacles" as ferocious as they are today ?

« **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:00:54 PM »

Now that's a loaded word. Could Bobby have been as good a family man today as he was in the 1920s? Could he have passed through those fine institutions with his "Gentlman's 'c'"? Might he have been caught up in the Real Estate scandal as a lawyer? So many things but one is certain; he could not have remained an amateur and done what he has done. The only golfer in the past 25 years to perhaps have done this would be Tiger and he had no interest in remaining an amateur.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:06:45 PM »

Ok Ro - but I'm talking about obstacles on the course, not obstacles on the mind .

« **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:15:57 PM »

Would Jones have made enough birdies to win some of the shoot-outs they have on tour? Would he have played the enhanced Summer Amateur Circuit? Would he have become a great sand player with the advent of the sand wedge? Would steel shafts have enabled him to make riskier plays? Would he have traded Calamity Jane for Calamity Karsten? So many variables and unknowns...

Regarding the courses, faster greens, right? How were his nerves, truly? More elevated greens (those designed by Nicklaus)...would he have mastered the high cut?

« **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:26:03 PM »

being a genius is timeless...he was one then and would still be one now

« **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:33:35 PM »

How do we know that genius is timeless? The burden of proof falls to those who claim he would be the same players and I've yet to see any proof. He was undersized compared to today's athlete...you couldn't grow him taller. Would he have adapted to the regimen of the athlete-golfer or would he have bagged it, content to be a middle of the road player? would he have become complacent with enough top 10 finishes? worst of all, would he have gone to the Leadbetter Academy and emerged with Charles Howell III's game?

« **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:36:10 PM »

all one can do is be the best of his time..who knows, maybe Harry Vardon would be BETTE than Tiger if he was around today? who can say?

« **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:43:02 PM »

Willie -

I read here recently that Bobby Jones was a moderately heavy smoker who liked one before breakfast, and who took a drink (usually bourbon) when he wanted one. He also was an elegant writer, a stylish dresser, a graceful golfer, and a keen and insightful student of architecture. So let me put it this way - I'd sure like to think that he'd be as great a champion today as he was then. Plus, if he had the talent to hit one of those rocks 250 yards with one of those sticks, and to draw and fade that rock at will - well, I'm pretty sure he'd do just fine with a hunk of titanium the size of a Buick....

But I just realized you were asking two other and different questions, Willie. Those are hard to answer, but we have a clue, i.e. Jones chose to work with Dr. Mackenzie and to create Augusta, the attempt to embrace and manifest the principles of great British links architecture on an American, inland site. 80 years later, maybe he'd be the kind of great player who'd again want to try to design a course that could host the Masters while still serving its members very well the other 361 days a year.

Peter

« **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:45:42 PM »

Eldrick would have more second place trophies than a Southern Civil War battlefield.

Bogey

« **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:48:06 PM »

Great hands would always be great hands

« **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:48:52 PM »

I think greatness finds a way to win no matter what. So if Jones was alive today his swing and game would evolve with the time and look different, however he would still be a great golfer. Likewise I would imagine if Tiger played with hickories for a year he would hardly miss a beat.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2009, 09:58:18 PM »

Quote from: Pat Burke on January 21, 2009, 09:48:06 PM

Great hands would always be great hands

I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head. Jones would be a great golfer today because he had great hands, and because he was a fierce competitor.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2009, 10:34:05 PM »

Willie

Bobby Jones would have been as good today as he was in his own time. He would have acclimatised to the newer equipment and perhaps kept the design process on a more traditional footing than we might have today.

Ability linked with ability gives you a constant. The more interesting question is how would today’s guys fair if they went back in time to compete with past Champions?

Forget the clubs/balls, the in depth requirement of the modern pro for distance information would I believe reflect on their play for some considerable time and therefore may not actually cause the earlier Champions much of an initial problem.

But to say ‘who cares’ Ronald makes one wonder why you join a discussion group in the first place. We certainly do not always agree with each other but the point of GCA.com is that WE DO CARE

Melvyn

« **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:35:16 AM »

If Bobby Jones was around today I think the most important thing is that he would have been able to keep playing longer. He had Arnold-Chiari malformation I believe. It's a disease that I knew nothing about until my mom was diagnosed with it. In his day it meant that he endured ever-greater pain and ever-decreasing mobility. It's the reason he couldn't play into middle age and it likely affected him even when he was still playing. In our day it would mean that he, like my mother, could have a surgery to relieve much of the pain and, had it been caught soon enough, that he may have seen little fall-off in playing ability.

I don't know if he had the exact same thing my mom has, but it was similar at least. I'll try to give a bit more in-depth explanation of it tomorrow.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2009, 01:30:29 AM »

When comparing players of different eras, why is the current era always used as the one for comparison? What if the era of Robert Tyre Jones, Jr. were used instead? Could the “power game” of today’s players match up against Jones using the same equipment available and playing on the same golf courses available during his time of dominance? How would Woods (social issues aside) have matched up against Jones from 1920 to 1930? Does anyone ever wonder (more like dream) about what it would be like if Tiger Woods were able to play Bob Jones in a 72-hole match at The Lido in 1926? If there is a heaven.......

« **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2009, 01:47:20 AM »

How would Babe Ruth do in modern major league baseball? Would he still hit 60 home runs one season? Could he win 20+ games, several years in a row, as a pitcher?

Without a time machine, it's impossible to know. Yet in every sport I know of where you can objectively measure results, performances have gotten much, much better since the 1920's. I think it's often or always true in sports where performance is harder to measure. Tennis, gymnastics, figure skating, etc. If you think Bobby is the exception to this, I think you need to explain why.

Also, there are something like 25 or 30 times more golfers than in Bobby's day. The game, both pro and amateur, has exploded in popularity. That works against Bobby, too, IMO. He was a huge fish in a small pool. Could he still be a huge fish in an ocean?

« **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2009, 01:53:10 AM »

Quote

Well, being about 5 feet 8 inches tall, I don't think that he would have played anything like Tiger, just as a wee Ben Hogan would not have played like Tiger, either.

Ronald Montesano,

What is the height and weight of the current Remax Long Drive Champion Jamie Sadlowski?

How tall is Ryder Cup standout Anthony Kim - his real height, not what he's listed at?

Answer those two questions and maybe you'll decide it might make sense to retract your above statement.

« **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2009, 08:16:59 AM »

"The burden of proof falls to those who claim he would be the same players and I've yet to see any proof."

Ronald:

I don't know whose "burden" it is when comparing Bob Jones to say a Tiger Woods----eg those claiming he would be as good or those claiming he wouldn't be, but I do know there's no way in Hell to PROVE something like that, either way, and for pretty obvious reasons!

However, ironically, there is one person who apparently cares (or cared) very very much about that particular comparison. Can you imagine who that is?

« **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:44:28 AM »

Michael,

Amen, brother.

« **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2009, 03:11:12 PM »

All right lads, gang up on me...I'll have at you:

Sadlowski is a one-trick pony...If that's what you want for Bobby, so be it. It takes more than one trick to be today what Bobby was then.

Anthony Kim can "break ankles" of opposing ball players in hoops. He was raised on meaner streets than Jones could have ever know. I'd take Kim v. Jones for all the marble in the Vatican.

TEPaul, if it's not you, then I'm stumped...is it you? I thought so! Wait, maybe it's me...nope, can't be. I'm only in it for the advocacy of the devil.

Next?

News:

Willie_Dow

JESII

John Moore II

Joe Bausch

Ronald Montesano

Willie_Dow

Ronald Montesano

Willie_Dow

Ronald Montesano

PThomas

Ronald Montesano

PThomas

Peter Pallotta

Mike Hendren

Pat Burke

PCCraig

Bradley Anderson

Melvyn Morrow

Charlie Goerges

Dean DiBerardino

Jim Nugent

Kevin_Reilly

TEPaul

Keith Williams

Ronald Montesano

An Error Has Occurred!