[JNC Lyon]

Just heard an interesting statement from Peter Alliss on the Open broadcast.  He stated players in the early part of the 20th century were the most skillful golfers of all time, due to the primitive golf balls and equipment that they used.  He also implied their skill was due to the more rugged golf courses that they faced.

Were these players (Vardon, Ray, Hagen, Jones) the most skillful in history?  Has a dumbing down of golf architecture and equipment led to a dumbing down of skill?

[David_Tepper]

Since Peter Alliss was born in 1931 and never saw golf played in that period, one can certainly question the validity of his statement. Was Bill Tilden more skilled than Rod Laver or Roger Federer? There is no way of knowing for sure.

P.S. Peter Alliss certainly makes a number of Colonel Blimp-ish comments these days. I would take very little of what he says at face value. 

[Sam Morrow]

I love listening to Peter Alliss but everyone so often he throws random stuff out there. I do think his thoughts on those players is more interesting because of his father and his abilities.

[Garland Bayley]

How can modern high MOI equipment not dumb down skill? You get less feedback from your ball strikes. You have less reason to improve your skill.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter should know better, he has clearly forgotten the names of Strath and Young Tommy Morris from the late 1860-70’s. It took nearly 20 years before other players started to match their playing records. The equipment back then was certainly of no match to that of the early 20th Century.

Perhaps as a larger group he may well be right, but there were very skilled players in the 19th Century, don’t agree then play TOC with a set of 1920-30 Hickory or if you are brave enough a set from the 1870’s, then check your score for a round at TOC.

Melvyn

PS

I do not define skill as the ability to hit a long Tee shot.
 

[Niall C]

Jon

The thing with Alliss's comments is that you have to judge them by what time of day they were made and how empty the bottle is. The emptier the bottle, the emptier his head IMHO.

With regard to his comment it could just as easily be argued that you can do more with a modern ball and irons and therefore there is more skilled required to get the most out of them. Personally I'm not convinced either way. I think the cream in any era would come to the top nomatter when and what you played with.

Niall

[David Kelly]

Since skill in all sports has manifestly improved since the early part of the 20th Century it stands to reason that golfer's have become more skilled as well.  Just look at the Olympic records.  Give today's players the equipment that was used in the early 20th Century and with their increased size, strength and ability to dedicate more time to practice they would quickly become far more proficient than their 20th Century counterparts. This goes for all sports.

[Garland Bayley]

...Give today's players the equipment that was used in the early 20th Century and with their increased size, strength and ability to dedicate more time to practice they would quickly become far more proficient than their 20th Century counterparts. This goes for all sports.

What's size and strength got to do with it? We're talking golf here where many argue that it is a detriment.

My point was that a large number of the most modern players are given tools inadequate to the task. I.e. bicycles with training wheels. Tiger Woods has been known to forgo these training wheels to train with a persimmon driver. How many others do something similar?

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

If you are correct and I am afraid I do not believe you are, perhaps you can answer a simple question.

Why do players who use distance aids, find that they struggle for a few rounds or so when they do not use them. This has been confirmed on GCA.com on a few occasions when I challenged members to try playing using their own God gifted aids, eyes brain etc.

We, as human beings are not better than those who have precede us, if lucky we may match their endeavours. Example the Roman Army and their ability to build their overnight fort, destroy them in the morning then proceed on their campaigns. These Romans were for the most part smaller than us but had greater body strength, so sorry I feel you underrate past generations. They had the same skill but filtered through the tools of their day. As for Golf, it has become so much easier since the 1930 with the equipment compensating for perhaps some lack of skill in the modern Golfer.

Melvyn

[George Pazin]

Every generation adapts to what is has to work with and the challenges it faces. The added bonus of today's generation is the greatly - and I mean GREATLY - increased participation rates. Today's guys would destroy yesterday's, given awhile to adapt to the equipment.

That's not a slight on the guys of yesteryear. Were they born today, and today's guys born yesterday, they would be the ones doing the whippin'. Tomorrow's guys would whip today's, for the same reason.

Silly, almost meaningless, statement from Alliss...

[Melvyn Morrow]

George

Its easy, prove your point by playing a round using the clubs of the 1920's or get a Pro to do it, that is one who has never seen let alone played with a Hickory. Then I may agree - I feel you will find it may take some time to adjust, if adjust they can. Bet you will not see any great records broken.

Its there to prove, until then I have my doubts

Melvyn

[Keith Phillips]

I am in the David / George camp, athletes in every sport are SO much more skillful than in generations past...I grew up a(n ice) hockey player, and the players I idolized in the 70s couldn't even make the (expanded) NHL today - size is part of it but really the raw 'skill' of the modern player is at a very different level...ditto the case in basketball, just watch an old video of Bob Cousy from the 50s...he literally couldn't make a D3 team these days...it is natural that in golf like all of life's endeavors people adapt and improve, always copying/improving upon the idols of their day

[Sean_A]

For sure I think the average top flight golfer is better now than ever before.  However, the very best of any age I think are a match for any era's best.  Are folks gonna tell me that the 20 year olds of today are better than Jack or is there some twisted logic to the argument that only begins on some hand picked date?  I can go right down the line through each era.  

Keith

The biggest difference in hockey today to the 70s is the goal tending.   Goalies today blow those guys out off the ice.  Of course, they hadn't yet really got over the stand up style of tending as dictated by the no-mask era.  Watching those guys in clips is amazing - they just don't seem to move.  The second biggest difference is down to the Russians and Euros in general for injecting higher skill in skating, passing and shooting.  That Summit Series was a huge wake-up call and spelled the end of goon hockey even though it took many more years to fully convert the game.   


Ciao  

[David Kelly]

Are folks gonna tell me that the 20 year olds of today are better than Jack or is there some twisted logic to the argument that only begins on some hand picked date?  I can go right down the line through each era.     

No, the 20 year old strawmen of today are not the equal of the greatest golfer of all time.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David, George & Keith

We judge people today on what we believe are our higher standard, but we just have not learnt the lessons from history.

Sod any other game, we are talking ‘Golf’, so let’s look to proving your points. As I said before ask a Pro or scratch player to don the equipment of the 1900-1925, noting that if this exercise in being undertaken in America, that course selection is important. No super manicured course with flat Greens, but more a course that represents the time period that we are referring to. Then undertake a test, say over three-six rounds, I fear the game may be slightly alien for our Pro so I would not be expecting any great score let alone performance.

As for 20 year olds, let’s look to a 19 year old who won The Open in 1870 starting the round with a 3 on a 578 yard Hole using the clubs of the day and the early gutty ball. This same young man had the ability as the reports go, to snap a head off an Iron by waggling it back and forward showing the strength in his wrists.

No, sorry guys, strip back the equipment and judge for yourself. Yet the reverse is also rather valid, give the golfers of the 19th or early 20th Century the courses and todays equipment, a little time to adjust and would we not have a great game. Noting the easier life our modern player, I fear that yesterday’s Champions would do some serious damage to the reputation of today’s top players. This of course can’t be proven (or disproven) but we can test the modern players with the old equipment.

So come put up or shut up I believe is the expression – the opportunity to prove us wrong is there, who will rise to the challenge?

Melvyn

[Tom MacWood]

Since Peter Alliss was born in 1931 and never saw golf played in that period, one can certainly question the validity of his statement. Was Bill Tilden more skilled than Rod Laver or Roger Federer? There is no way of knowing for sure.

P.S. Peter Alliss certainly makes a number of Colonel Blimp-ish comments these days. I would take very little of what he says at face value.  

That is true. On other hand his father, Percy Alliss, was a distinguished professional too, and would have run across most of those fellows.

I didn't hear the comment, so I don't know in what context it was made, but if he was saying golfers today cannot manipulate the ball as well as those golfers 100 years ago, due to changes in equipment, I think that is undeniably true.

[Will Lozier]

"ditto the case in basketball, just watch an old video of Bob Cousy from the 50s...he literally couldn't make a D3 team these days"

Keith, this is a ridiculous statement!  I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that the depth of quality athletes has grown exponentially in all sports, but Bob Cousy not being able to make the roster at Wittenberg?!?!  His exact clone, today, compared to Adam Morrison...think about that. 

In this argument, golf can really only be compared to tennis given that the equipment has such a massive impact on results.  Swinging as hard as these guys do today, with just a persimmon and wound balata ball, a slight mishit would produce astonishingly poor results!  I think Allison's argument is not that far off base.

I would say that if you suited up modern NFL players in leather helmets, those bulky pants, a wool jersey, and those leather soled cleats, you would see basically the same game you would have seen back then.  They would have no recourse but to play at a slower speed and not hit as hard...otherwise, you would have fatalities every game.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()