Muirfield Open 1959 - What was Player up to?

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Have a look at Player's long putt on the final hole.

http://www.theopen.com/en/History/PreviousOpens.aspx?eventid=1959000&view=

Player needed a par 4 for a 66, but got caught in a bunker and was on the green in three. He then leaves his long putt short of an unattended flag; it's no wonder!! Not shown is the next putt, but his tap in for a 6 is recorded, and a final round of 68.

What was the rule for hitting an unattended flagstick with a putt back in 1959? Any rules historians out there?

[JWL]

Wow!   That was some field he beat.    Only heard of the names of about 6 of the players.   Not many travelled over the pond in those days apparently.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Wow!   That was some field he beat.    Only heard of the names of about 6 of the players.   Not many travelled over the pond in those days apparently.

Was there a US boycott?   

Only three players from the US played; the amateur Bob Sweeny (who defeated Ireland's Lionel Munn in the Amateur at RSG's in 37, and was sort of regarded as British), Watson and Goggin.

[Matthew Rose]

There was a period in the 50s and early 60s where Americans didn't really go over there.... I think when Palmer went over and won it is when they started going again.

[john_stiles]

The oft repeated reason for lack of Americans was a very low prize fund, and high travel expensive.

Maybe someone can resurrect the travel costs,  my recollection is that if an American traveled and then won first prize, you could make more than travel expenses.

I think even Arnie was just playing for the honor and glory in his first in 1960.

Obviously prize monies increased greatly through the years.

Though WWII precluded play for many years,   Nelson played but twice, a 5th in 1937 and amazingly a T32 in 1955.

Hogan played once and won in 1953.  Almost certainly paid an entry fee and he won £500. He won 8 other majors from 1946 to 1953, posted other major top 10s in the 1960s.   Played in The Open only once.

Snead played 3 times T11 in 1937,  won in 1946, and  T6 in 1962.     He won on the US tour as late as 1965.  Snead was a guy that followed the money.

Nicklaus won but £ 5250 in 1970.     Even then it was mostly for glory and honor, but some might argue it was for increased endorsements, etc. by 1970.

In 1970,  Masters winner was about $25k, US Open about $30k, Open was £5250, US PGA about $40k.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Snead played 3 times T11 in 1937,  won in 1946, and  T6 in 1962.     He won on the US tour as late as 1965.  Snead was a guy that followed the money.
...

Not sure what "followed the money" means when you've documented there was no money to be had. Mostly Snead went, because Wilson required him to go if I remember his bio right.

[john_stiles]

I think we agree completely.

There was no money, or not enough money for the American professionals, to bother traveling to the UK and play The Open.

So Snead followed the money and stayed home in the US where the money was better.  It was better in terms of prize funds for the tournaments but also in the typical pro-ams, appearance fees, etc. Snead could earn while traveling to the next event.     He only played The Open 3 times even though he would win on the US Tour through 1965.     As you mentioned,    Snead may have only gone to please his sponsors. 

[Dan Kelly]

What was the rule for hitting an unattended flagstick with a putt back in 1959? Any rules historians out there?

Can't vouch for its definitiveness, but see http://www.ruleshistory.com/green.html.

Dan

[BCrosby]

Dan -

That's a reliable site on rules history.

But the bigger question is what is the rationale for penalizing someone who hits an unattended flag stick? Surely there is a better reason for the rule than simply discouraging players from using the pin as a backstop. Right?

Bob 

[James Bennett]

Cripes - the prize money wan't much more then than the green fees are today ! 

[Matthew Rose]

Arnie was trying to win the Grand Slam in 1960.

[Jim Nugent]

But the bigger question is what is the rationale for penalizing someone who hits an unattended flag stick? Surely there is a better reason for the rule than simply discouraging players from using the pin as a backstop. Right?

I have a memory from long ago of grumblings about Arnie's caddies using the pin as a kind of backstop.  IIRC, the idea was that they had developed pin holding as a skill set to help Arnie's putts fall. 

[Garland Bayley]

Arnie was trying to win the Grand Slam in 1960.

Which he conveniently defined during that trip to the British Open as the Masters (a tournament he had won), US Open, British Open, and PGA Championship, leaving out the generally difficult and oft called major championship, the Western Open (a tournament he had not won). I guess being a PGA pro, he couldn't leave out the PGA championship. Too bad he left out the Western Open for the PGA Championship, or he would have been a grand slam winner.

[Jim Nugent]

Garland or anyone, what was the status of the Masters before 1960?  How big a deal was it in 1938?  1948?  1958?

[BCrosby]

But the bigger question is what is the rationale for penalizing someone who hits an unattended flag stick? Surely there is a better reason for the rule than simply discouraging players from using the pin as a backstop. Right?

I have a memory from long ago of grumblings about Arnie's caddies using the pin as a kind of backstop.  IIRC, the idea was that they had developed pin holding as a skill set to help Arnie's putts fall. 

Jim -

My question is about "unattended" pins. Can the rationale for the rule really be that players would use the pin as a backstop? Or do our noble legislators see the rule as serving some a higher purpose? If so, what would that higher purpose be?

I note that eliminating the rule would speed play.

Bob

[john_stiles]

A nice reference for rules is   " The Rules of the Green - A History of the Rules of Golf "  by Kenneth Chapman in association with the R&A and USGA,  1997.

The discussion about the flagstick is about 3 pages.   There is a telling quote from Richard Tufts in 1960 about the new joint code in 1956. The new rule in 1956 was the same for match or stroke play and provided that there was no penalty for striking an unattended flagstick.  

From the book, page 124,  Richard Tufts wrote in 1960 that    " The differences in procedure between match play and stroke play, the rights of the player and opponent to have the flagstick attended or not, the application of the penalty sometimes to one side and sometimes to the other, were all done away with and the play of the game without caddies greatly expedited.  Traditionalists still take offense at the use of the flagstick as a backstop but experience indicates that when it is so used, the breaks in the player's favor are closely matched by the breaks against him . "

In the text paragraph,  Chapman writes ....  " This happy situation lasted until 1968, when the traditionalists won the day.  Since then the rules have called for a general penalty for striking the flagstick when a shot is played from the putting green. "

My reading of Chapman's book would be that there was no penalty for striking an unattended flagstick in 1959, which rule lasted from the rules changes in 1956 until 1968.    

Furthermore, that the use of the flagstick as a backstop is the reason for present rule.

The title of the subsequent paragraph is  titled   LET'S GO  and  Chapman's last sentence is  " Unfortunately, there was no return at the same time (meaning special amended code of 1970) to the sensible rules in force between 1956 and 1968 permitting striking an unattended flagstick, and present day golfers consequently have to waste much time running back and forth to attend or remove it. "  

[BCrosby]

John =

Thanks for the exegesis. Good stuff. I am pleased that Chapman and I seem to be on the same page:

 " Unfortunately, there was no return at the same time (meaning special amended code of 1970) to the sensible rules in force between 1956 and 1968 permitting striking an unattended flagstick, and present day golfers consequently have to waste much time running back and forth to attend or remove it. "

A silly rule that should be repealed, not just because it is silly, but also because its elimination would speed play.

Bob

[Garland Bayley]

Garland or anyone, what was the status of the Masters before 1960?  How big a deal was it in 1938?  1948?  1958?

It was low status low attendance until Arnie showed up in the mid 50s and captured the public's attention. In the early fifties they were running promos in Augusta movie theaters to try and get people to come out for the tournament, because attendance was so poor.

[jeffwarne]

The fact that The Masters was promoting its event in the 1950's, and to some degree in the 1960's as tickets were still available in 1967 when my family moved to Augusta does not mean it was a "low status" event  in that era.
If you could ask Ken Venturi about his disappointments there I don't think he would tell you it was a "low status" event that broke his heart.
Augusta was a very small town in the 1950's, and supporting any event would be difficult at that time.
Arnie revivied American player and fan interest in the Open Championship, and contributed greatly to golf and The Masters popularity, but The Masters was a major by then, and all the best players attended-unlike the Open Championship.(mainly due to impracticality)

[Jim Nugent]

Jeff, when do you think the Masters became a major?

[Garland Bayley]

Eubank's Augusta says some people think it became a major in 1953, others in 1954 when Snead beat Hogan in a playoff and Jones called it the greatest Masters ever.

[Jim Nugent]

Garland, I take it you don't agree with either Eubanks or the others you refer to in your post. 

I remember reading that #12 was the key hole in the playoff.  Ben was in good shape, on the green IIRC, but Sam hit his tee shot into the creek, and then chunked his 3rd into the muddy bank.  Staring at a triple or worse, he holed out his next shot for bogey, saved his round and went on to win. 

[Garland Bayley]

The Wikipedia article on men's major championships suggests that the Western Open was a major until 1960 when Palmer named the Masters as one of the tournaments of the Grand Slam he was trying to win that year.

The Western Open was the tournament of the USGA's early competitor for golf's ruling body in the U.S. It was a championship of the U.S. Open caliber, moving to different locations every year. IMO it had the pedigree to be the fourth major. It also more nearly approximated the majors that Bobby Jones won by being contested on different courses every year.

The Masters is too easy for the old hands to win. They have the course familiarity, and they have the much more limited field to compete against.

[Jim Nugent]

If you count the Western as a major from the 1920s, Hagen won 16 majors.  He won 11 of the current majors roster, and that was only with 3 per year to work with: U.S. Open, British Open, PGA.   

The Masters field is smaller, but I think it is as good at the top end.  That means outliers (e.g. Ben Curtis at the Open Championship) can't win the Masters.  Easier for those with experience?  In some ways, the Open Championship has been the easiest.  By my count it has the biggest number of repeat winners since 1960 (12) which ties it with the U.S. Open.  Masters is 3rd with 11, and the PGA has the fewest at 9.

No huge differences between any of them.  But it does suggest to me that experience doesn't matter more at the Masters than at the U.S. Open or the Open Championship. 
 

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

Your counting methodology is seriously flawed. The way you count, there are many years the Masters was not even contested. For example 1986, when Jack won for the sixth time you don't give any chance for repeat winners, when in actuality it was his 5th repeat win.

If you count correctly, the totals come out exactly like I would have predicted. The PGA Championship has the strongest field (IMO the hardest major to win, therefore the best), and it comes up with 14 repeat winners.

The US Open has the second strongest field over this time span, because The Open Championship had weak fields in the early years of this time span. The US Open has 16 repeat winners, and The Open Championship has 20 repeat winners.

The weakest major, because it is too easy to win, The Masters has 22 repeat winners over this time period.