Old Tom vs. Jack

« **on:** January 29, 2008, 01:03:36 AM »

I have been away from GCA for a couple of weeks and I hate to start a thread about who is more influential, but I saw this in Links magazine and couldn't help myself.

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/features/old_tom_morris_vs._jack_nicklaus_golf.aspx

In some ways asking who has been more influential: Old Tom or Jack is silly. Yet, naming JN as more influential shows a little parochialism and contemporary bias. Old Tom set the standard by which golfers, champions, and courses are judged. He designed the first links course in England and wandered the Isles setting the standard for course design. His gentlemanly behavior helped change peoples ideas about the professional golfer and on course behavior by all players. His greens keeping skills jump started the profession. Old Tom by a mile.

« **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:25:44 AM »

Tommy, off the course Nicklaus always had time for his family. What was Old Tom's family life like? Maybe this could be the tie breaker.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:14:59 PM »

Tommy, thanks I agree

Darren

Old Tom was a family man totally devoted to his wife and children. His family life is full of sorrow, outliving all his children. His last son died two year before Old Tom fell down the stairs of the St Andrews New Club and died on the 24th May 2008. A totally devoted family man and my great, great grandfather.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:30:16 PM »

Besides being a top notch championship golfer and golf course architect, Tom Morris should be remembered for other contributions to golf as well.
This quote summarizes a few of the other influences Tom Morris had on the game.
"Tom Morris was also the father of modern Greens-Keeping. He introduced the concept of top-dressing greens and introduced many novel ideas on turf and course management, including actively managing hazards (in the past, bunkers and the like were largely left to their own devices, becoming truly "hazardous"). In course design he standardized the golf course length at 18 holes (St. Andrews had at one time been 23 holes), and introduced the concept of each nine holes returning to the club house. He also introduced the modern idea of placing hazards so that the golf ball could be routed around them. Before his times hazards were thought of as obstacles that either had to be carried or were there to punish a wayward ball."
Although I will not argue one way or another about which of these two men were more influential, I will say that many of Morris's contributions to the game have either been forgotten or are not known by many even in the golf world.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:37:41 PM »

Quote from: Melvyn Morrow on January 29, 2008, 12:14:59 PM

Tommy, thanks I agree

Darren

Old Tom was a family man totally devoted to his wife and children. His family life is full of sorrow, outliving all his children. His last son died two year before Old Tom fell down the stairs of the St Andrews New Club and died on the 24th May 2008. A totally devoted family man and my great, great grandfather.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:37:58 PM »

I just finished reading Tommy's Honor and I would say it breaks the tie in Old Tom's favour.

To me at least Old Tom was very much a family man. Marched the children each Sunday from church (a devout Presbyterian I think) to visit the grave of "Wee Tom," his first child who died at age 4.

Partnered with his son in matches for the better part of Young Tom's golfing career. Covered for him when he stretched beyond his place. Young Tom even moved back home after the death of his wife and child. It was Old Tom who kept the exploits of Young Tom going after he died.

He had another son Jack, who could not walk, work with him in his club making shop. Although this would be a tie, especially if you see who some of the listed architects are at Nicklaus Design.

He also played a large part in raising his grandchildren after the deaths of his son-in-law and daughter.

I found Old Tom's family life sad. He outlived all of his children. When the rumour was that Young Tom died of a broken heart, Old Tom said something to the effect that you couldn't die of a broken heart. If it were true he said he would have died long ago.

My vote still goes to Old Tom.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:48:21 PM »

Quote from: Melvyn Morrow on January 29, 2008, 12:14:59 PM

Tommy, thanks I agree

Darren

Old Tom was a family man totally devoted to his wife and children. His family life is full of sorrow, outliving all his children. His last son died two year before Old Tom fell down the stairs of the St Andrews New Club and died on the 24th May 2008. A totally devoted family man and my great, great grandfather.

That's not for a few more months - someone should warn him about those steps!

« **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:51:57 PM »

Sorry,

Garland,

Well spotted, the year should read 1908, just testing making sure that you are keeping your eye on the ball (gutta percha)

« **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2008, 01:21:58 PM »

I don't think it is any slam on Jack Nicklaus to say that Old Tom Morris has been a more influential figure in the history of golf. Due both to his talents and the time and place where he did his work. This one isn't close.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:10:14 PM »

I too read Tommy's Honor. I suspect some of the book concerning the matches was conjecture. The information about Old Tom as innovator, champion golfer, church member, course designer, greens keeper rings true with his reputation. How he dealt with the sorrow in his life is a tribute and testimony to his love of life and faith. He is the example par excellence of what a golfer and human could be. I wish he had been cloned.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:50:56 PM »

I'll have to get around to that book, "Tommy's Honor". I have the book, "The Scrap Book of Old Tom Morris" that certainly indicates a man fully engaged with his contemporaries, fully generous with his time, advise, skills in all the crafts of green keeping, club making, and playing.

Modern realities has JN as a celebrity, not a seminal figure, and keeper of the game. No doubt that JN has his strong family ties and loyalties, as well as some charity (perhaps generous in ways the public doesn't know, and he may rather keep to himself and those intimately concerned)

Yet, we read all the old books, articles, essays and see that Old Tom touched so many as a sort of guru of the game.

I think that the by-gone times of greater craftsmanship, fellowship, and commeraderie VS the modern realities of managing celebrity time, fortunes, and business, separate the two gentlemen.

Perhaps one word that distiguishes the two may be "access" to those interested in learning or associating with these two figures.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:55:22 PM »

"I think that the by-gone times of greater craftsmanship, fellowship, and commeraderie VS the modern realities of managing celebrity time, fortunes, and business, separate the two gentlemen."

That's really good, RJ. I think that gets it just right, and said very well.

But, while I think I agree with Kirk G's post, yours makes me wonder whether JN's not more 'influential' if only in the sense that he captures/reflects the spirit of an age that has now shaped golf course architecture for about 4 decades, and that has produced the majority of golf courses upon which the majority of golfers play the game.

(Something along the lines of more people seeing Mel Gibson's Hamlet on one weekend than saw all of Shakespeare's plays in person during his entire lifetime.)

Peter

« **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2008, 11:28:14 PM »

I think this was "nice" to do for Jack. He needs an ego stroke as he watches his legacy get run over in his lifetime.
Trivializing Tom Morris' accomplishments wasn't the best way to do it.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2008, 12:41:55 AM »

From the article

"While Morris’ role as a pioneer is significant, his status in golf and achievements were made easier because he was working with a nearly blank canvas. In comparison, Nicklaus dramatically shifted long-entrenched standards of a player’s influence, both on and off the course; he has altered the golf landscape, to the benefit of both contemporaries and subsequent generations, including Tiger Woods. Ultimately, Nicklaus’ achievements are more impressive."

I am not sure that working with a "blank canvas" is all that easy. It takes a creative genius that others in his day did not possess. It was that blank canvas that allowed others to enjoy the masterpiece he created. We are still gazing at his legacy today.

It is amazing to me how little history people know. Not just golf history but world history, art history, music history, or even baseball history. I told one rabid baseball fan that I was reading the bio of Christy Mathewson. "Who is he?" he innocently asked.
Somehow those of us who value the contributions of previous generations need to keep their legacy alive. Books like Tommy's Honor and others make very important contributions to our shared knowledge. I just wish that Links magazine had done its work a little better. I'm done ranting.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2008, 08:08:19 AM »

Quote from: Ralph_Livingston on January 29, 2008, 11:28:14 PM

I think this was "nice" to do for Jack. He needs an ego stroke as he watches his legacy get run over in his lifetime.
Trivializing Tom Morris' accomplishments wasn't the best way to do it.

Agreed that Old Tom's accomplishments seeemed trivialized, definately not needed. Jack's legacy is set in stone, regardless of what Eldrick does or doesn't do. When Woods can claim he has made the architectural contributions that Jack has, then writers can boast about his legacy.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:09:50 AM »

Old Tom vs. Jack

Well, firstly not fair, separated by nearly a century of change and development. I believe both offers and gave golf a much needed boost.

When Old Tom was playing golf there was just a hand full of golf course in Scotland. When he started his design work, he had very few examples to base his ideas on, no list of thousands of clubs, no fast track method of transport to this part of the country or world for that matter, no high quality or aerial photo’s , no CAD, No JCB’s or other heavy earth moving equipment, no million Dollar budget, no publicity or advertising agency, no product endorsement or revenue. Yet in his lifetime golf was launched not just in to the British Isle but worldwide. Those who studied under him took his ideas and developed them world wide. Ross, MacDonald, Foulis Brothers, Colt, Waters, White, Tillinghast to mention just a few. I can go on.

Is it fair to try and compare people from different time periods? No I don’t think so.

Jack Nicklaus has contributed to golf, perhaps not in the same way as Old Tom, but never the less he has stamped his name on the history of Sport and deservingly so.

The problem as I mentioned in my article The Early Designers (In My Opinion section of GCA.com), relates to not understanding what our early designers actually did. You can’t judge a designer on just one design; you have to look at a random selection before you can make an informed judgement or decision.

Old Tom was exceptional, and for that reason many try to undermine his achievements or try and test them against this idea or individual. It is completely unreasonable, unfair and actually achieves very little apart from confirming that he or she is not into history. So why make a comparison in the first place.

Well it could be fun, but someone may be upset or offended by the resulting debate.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2008, 05:40:14 PM »

I'd have to agree with Melvyn on all counts in the previous post.

Although there are obvious similarities and comparibles between the two, Old Tom and Jack, they lived in totally different era's.

However, if forced to make a decision, I wouldn't hesitate in backing Tom Morris Snr......by a country mile ! Morris's contributions "to the sport" cannot possibly be matched by Jack, or anyone else for that matter. Tom opened so many doors which allowed future generations of am & pro to simply walk through on their road to success and prosperity - or mere heavenly joy at being able to play the game.

The promotional work of Old Tom was immeasurable at a time when golf was just beginning to find it's way.

Jack, and countless others, deserve complete respect for their contributions in evolving golf to it's modern stage. Tom Morris cut the cloth for them all to wear IMO !

Alfie.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:22:56 PM »

Quote from: Ralph_Livingston on January 29, 2008, 11:28:14 PM

I think this was "nice" to do for Jack. He needs an ego stroke as he watches his legacy get run over in his lifetime.
Trivializing Tom Morris' accomplishments wasn't the best way to do it.

Well said. As Tommy Williamsen put it, it is indeed amazing how little history people know. The Links author doesn't seem to be able to compare the two time periods that the two men lived in.

Jack's bigger impact on golf supposedly comes from parlaying his tour success into unprecedented success in equipment, teaching and "notably architecture." The author mentions his 300 "design credits." I think Old Tom was a bit more hands-own.

In 100 years, I think that Royal County Down, Royal Dornoch, & Muirfield will still be some of the top courses in the world. Will golfers be making pilgrimages to his Muirfield or Valhalla?

In 100 years, I believe that Nicklaus's biggest legacy is going to be the signature golf course. His brand name will be long forgotten by then. One of the greatest golfers of all time, sure. But more impact than Old Tom Morris? Ridiculous.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:34:18 PM »

John

I'll 'put you down for a Birdie' for that one!!

Melvyn

« **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2008, 06:50:43 PM »

Quote from: John Mayhugh on January 30, 2008, 06:22:56 PM

Well said. As Tommy Williamsen put it, it is indeed amazing how little history people know. The Links author doesn't seem to be able to compare the two time periods that the two men lived in.

Jack's bigger impact on golf supposedly comes from parlaying his tour success into unprecedented success in equipment, teaching and "notably architecture." The author mentions his 300 "design credits." I think Old Tom was a bit more hands-own.

In 100 years, I think that Royal County Down, Royal Dornoch, & Muirfield will still be some of the top courses in the world. Will golfers be making pilgrimages to his Muirfield or Valhalla?

First of all, it is inordinately difficult in any sense to compare anyone to a pioneer, let alone in completely different time periods. The article is purely opinionated, so one should keep it in its proper context, however objectionable it may be. The problem with this thinking is that one, either it be Jack or Old Tom, must be reduced in stature to build the other up instead of letting them both stand on their own incredible merits.

As far as using Muirfield Village or Valhalla as examples, well, I garner that if they were both public facilities I know of at least one person who would travel hundreds of miles to play them.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2008, 09:50:42 PM »

Quote from: JohnH on January 30, 2008, 06:50:43 PM

Quote from: John Mayhugh on January 30, 2008, 06:22:56 PM

Well said. As Tommy Williamsen put it, it is indeed amazing how little history people know. The Links author doesn't seem to be able to compare the two time periods that the two men lived in.

Jack's bigger impact on golf supposedly comes from parlaying his tour success into unprecedented success in equipment, teaching and "notably architecture." The author mentions his 300 "design credits." I think Old Tom was a bit more hands-own.

In 100 years, I think that Royal County Down, Royal Dornoch, & Muirfield will still be some of the top courses in the world. Will golfers be making pilgrimages to his Muirfield or Valhalla?

First of all, it is inordinately difficult in any sense to compare anyone to a pioneer, let alone in completely different time periods. The article is purely opinionated, so one should keep it in its proper context, however objectionable it may be. The problem with this thinking is that one, either it be Jack or Old Tom, must be reduced in stature to build the other up instead of letting them both stand on their own incredible merits.

As far as using Muirfield Village or Valhalla as examples, well, I garner that if they were both public facilities I know of at least one person who would travel hundreds of miles to play them.

If you were in the UK and were on a golf pilgrimage to the US, and all courses were more or less open to the public (the UK model), then which Nicklaus course would you include in your five course itinerary? Or ten courses? Or fifteen courses? Think that will be any different in 100 years?

Nicklaus has his name associated with some good courses and nice clubs, but his GCA legacy will pale in comparison to Old Tom's. Quantity of "signature" courses doesn't trump quality.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2008, 07:43:46 AM »

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not arguing Old Tom's architectural influence nor stature, or relevance. I was merely pointing out Jack's best work, Muirfield Village (in my opinion), isn't readily playable, or at least not the last time I checked. Might it be possible one's view of his top couple courses be different if it were more accessable?

Pure speculation regarding 100 years from now. I believe however, since Old Tom's courses have been admired for the last 100, there's no reason to believe they won't be in another century.

« **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2008, 09:39:53 AM »

Quote from: Darren deMaille on January 29, 2008, 11:25:44 AM

Tommy, off the course Nicklaus always had time for his family. What was Old Tom's family life like? Maybe this could be the tie breaker.

Darren,
If Tom Doak was a convicted wife beater and Art Hills donated all his earnings to worthy causes, would that affect your opinion of their work? or their GCA legacy?

« **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2008, 11:28:47 AM »

Quote from: Lloyd_Cole on January 31, 2008, 09:39:53 AM

Quote from: Darren deMaille on January 29, 2008, 11:25:44 AM
Tommy, off the course Nicklaus always had time for his family. What was Old Tom's family life like? Maybe this could be the tie breaker.

Darren,
If Tom Doak was a convicted wife beater and Art Hills donated all his earnings to worthy causes, would that affect your opinion of their work? or their GCA legacy?

The article was not just about their respective GCA legacies but their legacies in general. I take that to mean the whole of their lives, golf and more. Yes if your examples were true it would make a difference.

Did Pete Rose's extra curricular activities affect his legacy? Or John Daley's. I thinks so. Of course there are others like Sam Snead who seem to be exempt. Yet for me, the totality of who a person is affects the legacy they leave behind.

However, as I tell my parishoners who are burdened, "You are not the worst thing you have ever done."

« **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2008, 11:48:30 AM »

Tommy

Point taken. I hadn't read the article. I jumped on the comment as it seems that 'family values' rates above achievement and ability in some folks' eyes. Especially in election years. I remember when Clinton was running the first time - the candidates were asked their favourite drink - the most popular reply was milk. Well, I just don't believe that.

Behind the scenes in sports and entertainment there is a lot going on that would shock the general public. Sporting icons have arrived at charity events to ask the local organisers where they might find easy women ... but it seems that their image as figureheads is something that the industry and the media don't feel like dismantling. Too much is tied in to it.

We know of Daly's behaviour because he lacks the skills, and the advisors, to keep it hidden.

I wonder what you think about Hogan as a man? Do you think that the way he lived has affected his legacy? (I think we'll never know the whole Hogan story because while he was alive very few were willing to speak out against a National Hero, and now he's dead, pretty much all those in the know are too...)

News:

Tommy Williamsen

Darren deMaille

Melvyn Morrow

Don Hyslop

Garland Bayley

Paul Stephenson

J Sadowsky

Melvyn Morrow

Kirk Gill

Tommy Williamsen

RJ_Daley

Peter Pallotta

RSLivingston_III

Tommy Williamsen

JohnH

Melvyn Morrow

Alfie

John Mayhugh

Melvyn Morrow

JohnH

John Mayhugh

JohnH

Lloyd_Cole

Tommy Williamsen

Lloyd_Cole