Feed on
Posts
Comments

Jack’s Evolution: What Constitutes “Greatest of All Time”?

May 19th, 2013 by

In an internet awash with junk, every once in a while you stumble onto gold. I wanted to document this little piece that was well researched and presented. I was surprised at how little I knew of this history. This is courtesy of Brock Savage over at GolfWRX:

——————————-

Jack fans, who like to accuse Tiger fans of knowing nothing about golf history, seem strangely unaware that before Jack broke the record, the pro with the most major wins was Walter Hagen, who had 11 titles now recognized as majors, plus five Western Opens, which was considered a major before the Masters was founded, and certainly had much tougher fields than the amateur majors that padded Jones’s total. 16 majors, from a guy who won the US Open before the PGA or Masters were even founded, and who had to travel by ship to play the British Open (which was cancelled for WWI for five years during Hagen’s prime), but nobody ever said Hagen was the GOAT. But somehow, by the late 70′s, most of the public and media accepted that “most majors” was the best way to compare players.

I’m a Tiger fan now, but I’ve been attending PGA events since the 60′s, and Jack was my favorite player for over 30 years. I very clearly remember him lobbying for the majors standard in TV interviews. I’ve collected references I’ve found over the years, and I thought I’d post some samples to show a timeline of the evolution of Jack’s statements on the subject. Hopefully some of my pals here can use it for future reference. I’m starting a new thread so it will be easy to find, and I think it has enough meat to be a subject in itself.
I’ve indulged myself by guessing Jack’s motives for each change of direction. I acknowledge that it is sheer speculation. Anything inside quotes is something Jack said; anything outside of quotes is my own paraphrase or imagination, and you’re welcome to differ with my opinion of his motives. But I think the quotes pretty much speak for themselves.

1959 — As an amateur, Jack says that Bobby Jones is the greatest player ever. But he says it in the context of the Grand Slam, not his total major wins. Note that in Jack’s 1996 autobiography, he said that he never seriously contemplated turning pro until mid-1961, so he felt he had a long time to try to match the feat of Jones:
“That’s my goal. Bobby Jones. It’s the only goal.”
Unfortunately, the original is no longer linkable since Time put up a pay wall.

1963 — Now he’s a pro, so it’s no longer possible to duplicate the Slam of Bobby Jones. Jack nimbly comes up with a new standard for GOAT. He says the guy who wins the most tournaments (not majors) is the greatest golfer of all time: “My aim is to win more golf tournaments than anybody who ever lived. I want to be the greatest.” Arnie had averaged over seven wins a year for the previous three years, and Jack had beaten Arnie at the previous US Open, so Jack probably figured he could break Snead’s record in no more than 12 years.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l-8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1IgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3429%2C1549725

1965 — In spite of one of the fastest starts ever, Jack is only averaging four wins per year, which means it might take over 20 years to catch Snead, even if Jack can keep up his youthful pace (he was playing 26 events a year then). Jack reconsiders his chances, and switches goals again. He now considers Hogan as the greatest ever. He says to beat him, he might have to win the (pro) Grand Slam, which only takes one good year. Note that Hogan had fewer majors than Hagen, whom Jack never mentioned as a standard. Note also that Jack is here saying it’s possible to be the GOAT with just four majors, if they’re consecutive:
“Right now I think you would have to say that Hogan was the best ever. That is the goal, but I don’t know how you get there. Maybe I could win the Grand Slam, but what would I do after that if I was still young?”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076860/index.htm

Bonus from 1965: How many times have you read a post claiming that golfers today lack the killer instinct because of the money they can make by just getting top tens? And how the golfers in Jack’s day had to win, or their kids would go hungry? Here’s an article from 1965 saying that American golfers are too soft, because all their endorsement money makes them not care about winning:
‘ Palmer summed it up well recently when he was quoted as follows: “I don’t think it’s a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don’t know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don’t need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of.”‘
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm

1970 — This was the watershed year, when Jack switched his goal to most majors, consecutive or not. I haven’t found a contemporary account of Jack’s exchange with Bob Green, the AP reporter who told Jack that he was only three majors short of Bobby Jones’s total after Jack won the 1970 Open at St. Andrews, but here is Jack’s recollection of it:
“It’s like my majors, I never counted my majors until Bob Green (of The Associated Press) told me at St. Andrews in the ’70s. He says, ‘Hey, Jack, that’s ten, only three more to tie Bobby Jones.’ I said, ‘Really?’ Honest, I swear, I never counted them.”
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/jack-nicklaus-reflects-on-50-years-of-masters-and-tiger-woods-chance-to-eclipse-him/

1970 — Jack quickly latches on to the idea of winning four more majors to beat Jones, rather than 50 more PGA events to beat Snead, or the seemingly impossible Grand Slam. One week after his Open win, Jack says his chief goal has always been the Grand Slam, but now adds that his other goal is winning 14 majors to beat Bobby Jones. Note that at this time, it is just his personal goal, and not a suggested standard.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D4VGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VS8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3260%2C2089101

1971 — Jack says his goal in golf is 14 majors to beat Jones’s record, but now hints that if he does it, it would make him the GOAT:
“The accomplishment that would separate me from other golfers is to win more major championships than [Jones] did.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MjojAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OrcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=766%2C5396241

1973 — Jack wins his 14th major, breaking Jones’s record. He now argues that majors are the only way to judge players of different eras. Note that he sort of acknowledges that it’s not fair to Jones, who CHOSE to stop playing majors, but he doesn’t mention Hogan, Hagen, Snead, and everybody else who came before him, who COULDN’T play four majors a year, or had several majors cancelled for world wars:
“You can’t compare stroke average because of the difference in course and people and equipment. You certainly can’t compare money winnings. That’s not valid. The only yardstick is the major championships. And even those aren’t the same. The comparison is very difficult to make. Remember, Jones retired at 28. If he’d stayed active, there’s no telling how many he would have won.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8upRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9XIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5064%2C4016575

1973 — Dan Jenkins, chief golf writer for SI and Jack’s head cheerleader, lends his full support. He says with his 14th major, Jack “officially became the greatest golfer who ever lived or died,” and compares an offhand remark Jack made to the Gettysburg Address. You think Tiger has sycophants in the media…
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087686/index.htm

1975 — Now in full lobbying mode, Jack argues that majors are the ONLY FAIR WAY to judge players. Not a hint about Jones retiring early, let alone Hagen hitting his prime before the PGA or Masters were founded:
“Money changes. You can’t use that to compare. The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XlVNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7076%2C4326235

1979 — Mission accomplished. The public has thrown Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nelson, and Snead under the bus, and bought into the idea that majors are the only fair comparison. Jack says his goal now is to extend his majors record as high as possible, to make it harder for a future player to catch him.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z0xSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RHwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6823%2C6632381

——————————-

Posted in Flashbacks | 1 Comment »

2013 and Beyond

Apr 7th, 2013 by

Thank you for visiting Persimmon Golf Today. While I fully intend to develop this site further in the future, I am taking a break from updating the frontpage while I pursue some other projects and priorities in my life. I am proud of the content that has been assembled here and encourage you to explore the archives of the forum and the frontpage articles.

For those of you wishing to delve deeper into the state of the game, I recommend Geoff Shackelford’s website, Golf Club Atlas, and the Talkin Golf podcast.

For traditional golf instruction, check out Golf Detox or Advanced Ballstriking.

For traditional golf gear, hit up Louisville Golf, TadMoore.com, Scratch Golf’s Custom Department, and The MacKenzie Golf Bag Company.

For traditional golf competitions, look into the Society of Hickory Golfers, the Shivas Irons Society, or the TRGA.

Above all, play the game you want to play. I’ll see you on the links!

Posted in Community | 2 Comments »

The Focus on Equipment Has Hurt Golf – An Essay by Kevin Crook

Jan 1st, 2013 by

Originally posted November 24, 2012 at http://www.golfwrx.com/52537/52537/ .

This is not the type of stuff you’d expect to see at Golf WRX.  When pieces like this start appearing on a site that caters primarily to “club ho’s”, you can’t help but hope that the golfing world might finally be wondering why the emperor has no clothes.

Photo: Darren Carroll

———————————-

The marketing machine that the golf industry has become, churning out new drivers, irons sets and putters seemingly over night, has hurt the game more than it has helped it. Too many golfers pay far too much attention to what they are hitting, rather than how they are hitting what they are hitting. The focus on equipment has steered the game in the wrong direction.

New clubs bring us that excited schoolboy, Red Rider BB gun effect, but by now we all know a great golf game can’t be delivered to us in a box. We’ve all heard the saying, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”

What about fool me 127 times?

The equipment manufacturers are not stewards of the game. They are not necessarily trying to build a better golfing public any more than a clothing company is trying to make the public better dressed. They are businesses that need our dollars to be profitable. While many golf courses seem to be struggling, golf equipment companies are rolling right along, economy be-damned. “These guys are good,” is one way to say it.

The manufacturers are not offering new clubs to the market every year with the idea of improving golfers, they are simply releasing new and fresh product to the market, looking for their piece of the pie. The painful truth is that most golfers have swings that no moveable weights, supersonic shafts, or dynamic paint scheme could possibly help.

Since 90 percent of golfers don’t break 90 on a consistent basis and the average USGA handicap in the United States for men is 14.3, how badly do we golfers really need to spend that $400 on a driver, instead of on a package of lessons from a local PGA professional?

Equipment is important to the game, but equipment is not the game. The game is about impact positions, consistent contact on the clubface and how well a player can control his ball as he hits it around those 18 holes. Even a golfer who has his “ideal” equipment still needs to make good swings and hit good shots.

Finding that ideal equipment is easier said than done. The science behind Trackman, FlightScope and other launch monitors cannot be argued. The accuracy of the information of this technology is incredible. PGA Tour players and top amateurs and professionals can use these devices to dial in proper shafts, club heads, club weights, lies and lengths with amazing results. But how are the rest of us supposed to use them?

My experiences with launch monitors when I was trying to “fit” for new equipment was that they showed me when I was making bad swings. I got two completely different sets of results from Flight Scope with the same clubs on different days. One day I was swinging about the best I could swing and had really low backspin numbers combined with an almost perfect smash factor. A week later my swing resembled a one-winged flamingo’s and my backspin, launch, carry and smash factor numbers were on the opposite end of the spectrum. There was no chance for me to “dial in” any shafts or head choices. I was too busy trying to make good swings to be able to tell which equipment might be best for me.

Golfers are often expected to pay upward of $250 for fitting sessions. That $250 fee puts pressure on us to get the most we can out of the fitting. If I had based an overhaul of my equipment on either one of those days with the launch monitor, I could very well have ended up with an expensive purchase that might not have improved me at all. In fact that was exactly what the pro told me. He said it is often difficult to “fit” people into new equipment and be able to assure them that the new equipment will make them better (outdated or poorly fitted equipment aside). Sometimes all of the new equipment hype is very hard to live up to.

My experiences at demo days at my club were equally as frustrating. TaylorMade came late to the event, with two clubs to hit and only the stock shafts in regular or stiff flex to try out. The grips were almost too slick to swing the clubs and the rep brought a range finder to follow the ball in the air and “tell” us how far we were hitting it. The Titleist rep had a launch monitor that told me I was carrying the driver he gave me to try out 295-yards in the air. Maybe it meant to say 245-yards. These are just two of the examples, and I am sure that the cattle call of people coming and going to these things is tough for any company to deal with, but the process left me feeling a little unwashed.

Conventional wisdom told me to take my club testing to the golf courses to try out drivers during actual rounds of golf. Over a two-week period I used several different Titleist 910D2 and D3 driver head and shaft combinations in about 10 rounds of golf. What I learned was that when I made good swings with almost any of the combinations, it was always better than poor swings with any of the combinations. The results were the same when I tried out drivers from PING and Callaway as well. With my driver swing speed, well-hit shots with just about every club went about the same distance and with the same accuracy.

I eventually settled on a purchase of new irons and woods that Frontier Airlines lost for me on my way home from a family vacation. While I square-danced with Frontier for a few weeks on the phone, a friend of mine offered to let me use his old clubs. They were about a 15-year-old set of huge-headed PING irons, the wrong length, lie, and flex for me, and an eight-year-old Callaway driver, also the wrong flex. I had some old wedges, a trusty old hybrid, his ill-fit 15-year-old Callaway three-wood and a back up putter that had been banished to hell. I figured it was better than nothing. I proceeded to have the three best weeks of golf I had ever put together in my life. Using that crazy combination of clubs, my handicap improved a shot and a half and I shot my career best round on one of the courses I play the most. A person more cerebral than I am might have felt downright silly for all of the money I had shelled out for the new clubs a month a before.

Lost in the fun and madness of trying out new equipment was the fact that good swings, solid course management, and knowing how to execute the short game are more important than the clubs I had in my bag. I grew up in a small Kansas town, on a nine-hole golf course with no driving range. The only practicing I could really do was chipping and putting around our course’s little practice green. I used to do that for hours at a time when I wasn’t good enough yet to play on the course with my grandfather’s nassau groups. Maybe that’s why I have so much fun trying out new equipment on driving ranges now; I never got to do it as a kid. I’m sure there is a lesson for me to remember about that now, but it is eluding me.

When I see the OEMs make videos for GolfWRX describing how they improved one set of irons over their previous year’s model, I can’t help but wonder who out there it is that can really tell the difference in the performance of the heads when they hit clubs with such subtle changes. They are all the highest quality clubs, and I’m guessing Luke Donald really feels a difference between the Mizuno MP-62 compared to the new MP-64. Nick Watney can discern the difference in one model of Titleist AP2 irons over the other and there may be some nice aesthetic and functional differences between the PING S58, S57 and S56 irons. But how many guys can tell the difference and have it really matter?

That player out there who says one is way better than the other might just be looking for a way to justify that Red Rider high once again. Maybe the turf interaction or the flighting built into the head is better in one club for some guys, but if they already owned the previous sets is there really a $900 difference in the new one? The club ho in me will say that I might buy one of the sets anyway, but that’s just because a ho is going to do what a ho is going to do.

The biggest problem with the focus being shifted to equipment rather than getting lessons and honing skills is that people recently new to the game won’t have the background in golf from 30-years ago as a child that prevents the bad “arrows” we sometimes find from keeping the “Indian” from being effective. Golfers are being convinced that their bad tee shots were hit because the club head weights and face angles had been set poorly or that the shaft in their new $399 driver wasn’t good enough. They are led to believe that equipment can be bought that will “fix” their swing flaws. I asked my local pro, a PGA Tour veteran with many made cuts to his credit about a certain shaft I was interested in trying out. He looked at me like I was speaking Chinese. He told me he had no idea what that shaft was, or what shaft was in his new TaylorMade driver he was killing. He had seen me in action many times, and he was polite enough not to come right out and tell me I wasn’t good enough to need anything more than what I had.

We can all choose to spend our free golf time and our golf dollars however we choose to. It doesn’t have to make sense, especially if it makes us happy. I’ll probably buy and sell two or three different putters over the next year or so too. One of my grandfather’s old buddies that helped teach me the game back in the day told me it didn’t matter if you putted with an old sheep herders stick if you are making putts with it. Playing with Bo Peep’s stick would be a lot cheaper, but it would not be as much fun as trying out new putters. The club ho in all of us knows that. That’s why the ho wins out and buys new equipment rather than sticking with what we have for awhile and spending that money on lessons.

It’s fun to hope that the next set of irons, newest driver or precisely milled putter could be be the spark we need to produce our best rounds and Nassau-winning putts. But we just can’t kid ourselves that we wouldn’t have been able to do it with what we had in the bag three, five and maybe even eight-years ago.

———————————-

Posted in Community, Equipment | 12 Comments »

Recent Acquisition – Maruman Conductor Pro

Nov 19th, 2012 by

Here I go again…

After recently espousing the virtues of my golfing austerity, I’ve gone and given in to selfish impulses.  Apparently having the money in the old paypal account was just too tempting.  To be fair, you occasionally see  clubs that are pretty darn unique and that you are unlikely to ever come across again.  That was the case for Ian Woosnam’s Maruman Conductor irons that I snagged  for what I consider to be a pretty fair price.  According to the seller, these are one of two sets prepared by Maruman for Woosie to game in the late 80′s / early 90′s.  They were taped up to his specs and were fitted with standard Dynamic Gold S400′s which were his shafts of choice at the time.  Apparently he took both sets out to the range and selected the sister set to game right away, with this one as a backup.  They have his named stamped on the back and he was a known Maruman staffer, so even though you can never be certain I consider it pretty legit.  Here’s a shot of him playing what could be the sister set:

Having never held, hit, or seen any Maruman club in person, I was struck by what a beautiful and functional blade the Conductor is.  It’s a classic muscleback blade design with a single step between the muscle pad and the top of the club.  The topline is VERY thin, which swept, rounded edges at all corners. Just a touch of offset – enough to line the front edge up with the middle of the shaftline.  This amount of offset is pretty common in 80′s and 90′s blades.

The challenge with having such a thin upper portion is that the deadweight and/or swingweight are sometimes difficult to get up to spec.  The clubmaker has corrected for this by adding lead tape just above the muscle pad in long strips.  Only the short irons have the tape.  This will also serve to raise the center of gravity and keep the flight down.

Another nice feature of the Conductor is the sole.  One area where I believe the blades of the 80′s and 90′s meet or exceed the functionality of the earlier generations is the sole design (and therefore interaction with the turf).  The Conductors have perhaps the thinnest and most rounded sole of any clubs I have ever seen.  Apparently, this was a concerted part of their marketing strategy – there is a “Maruman Sole” stamp on the heel of the reverse side.

Here are some specs I measured for you equipment junkies.  Sorry I don’t have swingweight or lie angle.

I’m not really sure what I want to do with these yet.  I may stash them in the collection for a while and try to resell em.  Either way, I’m absolutely going to give them a hit or two.  It’s going to be a blast to swing Woosie’s club, even if I’ll never make the ball fly like him!

Posted in Equipment | 10 Comments »

Aerial View of Classic Golf Swings

Nov 10th, 2012 by

One of the rarest and most informative views of the golf swing is the “above” or “aerial” view. For me, it’s much easier to figure out exactly what the golfer is aspiring to achieve when you feel like you’re in the cockpit yourself. Some of the positions I see in the aerial views of great golfers allow the observer to truly appreciate the dynamic and athletic nature of a classic golf swing. There is just so much more lower body movement in the classic model. Here are some of my favorite aerial sequences:

Extra credit if you can name the golfer -

And who’s this young buck? Answers in the comments section.

Here’s the position that is tough to get into.  My right wrist just does not like to be bent that much so late in the downswing.  Interesting to see the different options for hip rotation at this point in the swing.   I think Johnny saved it until the end which is why he had that ankle-breaking late lower body move through the hit.

And an interesting look at the hand action after the release:

Here’s a little video I compiled that shows a few overhead shots.  Enjoy!

 

Posted in Flashbacks, Shotmaking and the Golf Swing | 1 Comment »

2012 Season Ending Slideshow

Nov 1st, 2012 by

This post continues our look back at the 2012 golf season – one of my most memorable years on the links. I’m extremely lucky to have the health, time, and resources to be able to enjoy this great game. I never want to take for granted the beautiful environment of the county that I live in or the company of so many friends. I thought it would be fitting to grab some of my favorite images from the 2012 season and share them again as a thank you for all the contributions that you guys have made. The full show is in the 5 minute range, so crack a beer or pop the cork on that wine bottle and pour yourself something refreshing. Enjoy!

A shout out to our friends on the east coast – I hope you all made it through Sandy safely. We’re thinking of you all across the country.

[Under Construction]

Posted in Community | No Comments »

Horrors From the Past – Cleveland VAS Edition

Oct 27th, 2012 by

Writing the Corey Pavin Shotmaking piece a few turns back brought about some post traumatic stress that I feel should be dealt with promptly.  In today’s  tale, I shall confront one of my greatest childhood fears – early 90′s era Cleveland VAS irons.  I think Halloween is an appropriate time for such a discussion.

——————————————————-

My younger readers may not believe that such a hideous beast as the VAS exists on this Earth.  They may suggest that I’m just a senile old man.  I’m here to tell you that I have seen it with my own two eyes.  Would that I could go back to that day and unsee it – my life may have turned out different.  But the past is the past and I must press on before my courage fails.   I bid the weak of heart to turn back now, lest you face the same nightmares that still visit me.  In the following paragraphs I shall describe what I saw to the best of my ability, for I am willing to risk being considered a lunatic if it means I help others to never see the VAS themselves. 

I was 2nd to tee off at Laguna Lake Golf Course when I  observed the VAS in the fall of 1994.  It was a chill autumn day, and rain threatened to break free from the clouds.   But fate was cruel – no rain fell and play proceeded as normal.  I was called to the tee and approached unsuspecting.  For reasons I will never comprehend, it was my destiny to  glance in the bag of the man teeing off.   I now think of my life in two phases – everything before that moment and everything after – such was the impact of that first scarring glimpse:

[Artist's Impression]

Its head was an abomination.

A grotesque oval stood where the normal head should be, perhaps twice as long and half as high.  The visual impression of a teardrop came to mind and I found the image fitting – however tears were useless against the creature.  Another person may have seen a bullet shape, but if I truly had a gun I cannot tell you whether I would have shot the VAS or turned it on myself to escape my terror. 

The heel of the club, which should of course stop at the hosel, extended unnaturally beyond the shaftline.   It had curves, to be sure, but somehow they were  warped and twisted into something resembling blades or perhaps teeth.  Yes, teeth, I think – for every hideous lash from the VAS’s master (or perhaps the VAS was the master and the man the slave – we shall never know) was like an angry maw devouring the helpless turf. 

It appeared to be made from a mold rather than forged, yet a mold indicates repeatability and this thing had to be unique.  Surely God would never allow a world in which these VAS’s were able to multiply, running in packs and terrorizing innocents. Yet I thought I saw more than one in the bag, perhaps a pack of as many as nine, each the same but somehow different – longer, shorter, but all grotesque.

Its neck was crooked and I can only assume broken – although it was by no means immobile.  In fact, I was witness to the speed at which the VAS attacked the unassuming golf ball on the first tee.  After hiding in the shadows of the golfer’s backswing for what seemed like an eternity, the VAS swept up and over the top, jerking into its final decent before devouring both golfball and turf in one savage blur.  The poor Titelist stood no chance.  I only hope it found peace in its watery grave – the Perfumo Canyon Creek that ran adjacent to hole number 1.  I dared not move from my observation point as the golfer loaded ball number 2 and ball number 3, sacrificing each in turn to some terrible spirit or demon, I know not which.  I felt only sorrow for the ball that finally came to rest just clear of the hazard, knowing that its momentary relief would soon end with another VAS attack, perhaps by a packmate. 

As the man left the tee with his hell-pack, I trembled, paralyzed by fear, knowing if the VAS came for me I would suffer the same fate as the Titleists.  Had it seen me?  No, I thought.  I had been quiet.  I glanced back at the clubhouse, then beyond the fence that formed the course boundary.  There was nowhere to go.  I cowered behind my bag, listening to my own heartbeat.  BA THUMP, BA THUMP.  Was it gone?  BA THUMP, BA THUMP.

I could take it no more. Peering out between two headcovers, I thought for a split second that the teeing ground was clear and the VAS was gone.  But as I began to rise, my horror came back all at once, for I caught sight of the man striding off the tees and although his back was to me, I found myself staring straight at the cavity of the VAS.

THE VAS WAS STARING BACK AT ME. 

Its back was a hollow shell, a husk really, devoid of any muscle save for the perimeter.  A hideous scar ran down the middle of its sole.  The colors were unnatural – blue, yellow, red, purple.  Jagged lines transitioned to curves and the juxtaposition itself was enough to instill pain.  But the worst part, the part that haunts me to this day, was the terrible purple eye that was looking at me – looking through me even – and in that gaze there was no empathy, only rage, and hatred for traditional golfers and all their tools. 

[Artist's Impression]

I do not know why I was spared that day.  Perhaps a boy like myself was not large enough to satisfy the VAS’s appetite, or maybe it was the company of my foursome that pushed the VAS to find an easier target.   

I realize that all I have described sounds absurd.  I can only tell you that I saw it and I will never be the same.  

There is no doubt in my mind that in some forgotten corner of the golf universe, the VAS sits in a canvas bag, next to a Burner Bubbleshaft Driver, patiently awaiting its chance to be unleashed again.  I pray that I am not around to see that day.

——————————————————-

 

Posted in Community | 4 Comments »

Thoughts on Thinning a Collection

Oct 22nd, 2012 by

No, that collection above isn’t mine!

As this golf season comes to a close, I’ve found myself taking inventory – both physically and mentally.  I played some pretty good golf this year and even though my game is probably the best it has been top to bottom, I’m still a step away from where I want to be as a player.  Where is that?  I want to be able to play comfortably and competitively in the best skins game in town and be able to compete in my (or any other) local city championship in the scratch flight.  This means I need to be able to tee is up with the best high schoolers, the scratch/club champ type mid-ams, and the junior college level of golfer.  You will get some D1 college players in the action I’m interested in but I think it’s probably a bit a stretch to reach D1 given my physical abilities and quantity a practice time available (not too much).

Since I have no interest in buying my way to better golf, the only way to go is to dig it out of the dirt.  To that end, I’ll probably spend less time writing and more time practicing next season.  I’ve already started to ease in that direction but I’ll make sure PGT get consistent, if less frequent attention.

But this post was meant to be about taking physical inventory as well and by that I mean gear.  It’s been a couple years now since I started getting interested in seeing what traditional golf clubs were all about.  With everything so cheaply available, it’s pretty easy to get caught up collecting gear.  $20 dollars here, $30 dollars there – pretty soon you will have a whole garage full and that’s exactly where I was about 6 months ago.  I had always tried to buy only items I intended to put in play but even so, there was a bunch of stuff that needed adjustment or just didn’t look right or needed regripping, etc.  This stuff had to go!  But how to go about it? Even the stuff that wasn’t playable was attractive and historical, right?

Well, at the end of the day I never really wanted to be a collector.  I wanted to be more of a connoisseur – able to appreciate the most exquisite designs of the last 60 or so years but not necessarily own them all.  I convinced myself that the process of down selecting – getting rid of everything that isn’t of the utmost personal importance – is meaningful in itself.  Making the decision to liquidate can crystallize previously clouded thoughts, forcing the golfer to assign a value – even if a relative one, to the tools of their trade.  Which items really invoke thoughts and feelings?  Which gear would you want to show to your children as you taught them the history of the game?  Once I was able to figure that out, it became a matter of moving everything else.

But what to do with it? How to thin a collection?  Here’s what I did:

  • Bundle all the mid – low grade stuff. This is the stuff that might be perfectly playable but have no collectors value or visa versa but not the highly sought after stuff.  These were complete sets and usable clubs that I just didn’t play much anymore or had any number of liens against them – too whippy, too stiff,  too upright, too flat, etc.  I wasn’t interested in making profit off these – just finding a good home for them and making sure they didn’t get forgotten in a shed somewhere.  Here are some items from the bundles I created:

 

  • Sell the good stuff on Ebay and do it individually.  There were a few items that I could do to part with but still had decent value. These items I sold on Ebay.  This can be a hassle as the auction format has a sellers fee and runs the risk of not selling for much.  The buy-it-now option runs the risk of lingering unsold and requiring constant attention to answer questions, update the listing, etc.  Nevertheless, Ebay gives you access to a lot of eyeballs so that’s where I went with my Z-101′s and TP Mills Tour Issue Putter.

  • Donate – there were a few half sets and unfinished clubs that really weren’t even worth the effort to ship.  The best way to get anything out of these guys is to donate.  Since there isn’t a stable youth golf program serving underprivileged kids in the area I chose to give them to Goodwill.  I hope they find their way into a beginner’s bag somewhere.

So what items did I hang on to?  As it turns out, the clubs I wanted to keep were the ones I had history gaming.  My M85′s are my favorite vintage set and weren’t going anywhere.  My 80′s Staff Blades have been in the bag for over a year and obviously won’t be leaving.  I also kept my Turfriders and 1 set of 90′s Hogans.    That means I kept 1 set from the 50′s, 1 from the 60′s, one from the 80′s, and 1 from the 90′s.  Any of them can go into the bag to change up the look or enjoy a set from a different time.  Same with the persimmons – trimmed down to a few gamers, most from the 50′s or 80′s. That may still seem like a lot but the total value on my irons now are probably less than $400 with about $2-300 worth of persimmons. That’s a lot less than any newish set of clubs and now the few sets and few persimmons I have left are easy to manage, move, and admire.

There you have it… the thinning of a collection.  Never easy, but sometimes if you love something you have to let it go.  For those others who have significantly cut down- let me know what you did and why.  I’d be interesting to hear your motivations behind your decisions.

Posted in Community, Equipment, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Shotmaking Corner – Corey Pavin from 160 Yards

Oct 17th, 2012 by

Lest we forget, golf has long been a shotmaker’s game. The era of perfect putting surfaces, solid core distance balls, and 46 inch 460cc clubheads is still in its infancy. The greater annals of golfing history are filled with men and women who distinguished themselves through the quality of their striking, breadth of imagination, and mental fortitude to physically create what once existed only in the mind’s eye. The ability to work the ball – left, right, high, low, off sidehills and downslopes, tight lies and hardpan, different grass types and in varying weather conditions – was of paramount importance to championship caliber golf. Classic courses of the persimmon age demanded it. Shotmaking Corner will serve, I hope, to preserve a few bits and pieces of the once great body of knowledge of the great shotmakers should the next generation express a desire to direct the game back towards a more traditional form.

———————

Three shots from 160 Yards by Corey Pavin

Today we will observe the exception to the rules as US Open champion Corey Pavin shows us that with proper technique, dynamic shots can be played with almost any club design. In 1995 at Shinnecock Hills, little Corey Pavin came from 3 shots down to beat Greg Norman and win his only major. At only 6900 yards, the course was setup such that control and creativity could offset superior strength and length. In the selection below, Pavin shares some options for playing shots from 160 yards. What I really like about this excerpt is the swing sequences that go with the text, providing visuals on how the experts manipulate their path and clubface to produce the desired shots.

———————

Three Neat Shots – All From 160 Yards

To be a good shotmaker, you need to be able to play different shots from the same distance. Conditions such as wind, green elevation, hole location and ground are important factors in determining the type of shot you want to hit. It may be a low shot, a fade or draw, or even a run-up shot. Here are three options for playing the same shot from the same distance.

1. The standard 6-iron
For me, 160 yards is standard distance for a medium 6-iron; yours may differ. When wind and other adverse conditions aren’t present, play the ball just to the left of center of your stance and align your feet and shoulders parallel to the target line. Swing the club back slightly to the inside, letting your wrists break naturally just before your hands reach hip-height. Turn your shoulders fully with the club almost reaching parallel at the top. On the downswing and through impact, swing the clubhead along your stance line, the same way you took the club back. Let the momentum of the swing carry you into a full, free finish. This all-purpose 6-iron will hit the green on the fly and settle quickly after landing.


2. Hard draw with a 7-iron
If there’s no obstacle short and right of the green, and the hole is located on the back-left portion of the green, you might choose to hit a low draw that lands on the front part of the green and releases towards the hole. It’s a better option that tryign to fly the ball back to the hole because the high-flying shot too often ends up short.

Align your feet and shoulders to the right side of the green, but aim the clubface at the flagstick. Make sure you grip the club after you’ve aimed the clubface. Take the club back well to the inside and you’ll want to swing down along an inside path. Turn your shoulders as far as comfortably possible so you are fully coiled at the top of your backswing. Swing down from the inside and concentrate on letting the clubhead follow your body lines. Keep your head down through impact and beyond, as that will help you hit the ball solidly and keep the clubface sufficiently delofted to produce a low ball flight. The ball should start to the right of the green and then swing to the left, hitting the front part of the green and skidding back to the hole.


3. Punch shot with a 5-iron
If the wind is blowing hard in your face, there are no obstacles short of the green and the turf is firm, the low punch shot is extremely effective. You see this type of shot played a lot during the British Open. The idea is to hit the ball 150 yards on the fly, then let it run the remaining 10 onto the green. Once you get the hang of it, it’s a much better choice than hitting a higher shot that’s at the mercy of the wind.

You’re deliberately playing a low shot, so position the ball just to the right of the center in your stance. Don’t play the ball farther back than that, though. It isn’t necessary because the loft of the 5-iron is low for a shot of this length. Make a shorter backswing than with a full shot, but don’t deliberately omit any part of your body from the swing. You want your hips and shoulders to turn, just not as much. Through impact, keep your head down until after the ball is gone.

The real key to the punch shot is your follow-through. Even before you begin the swing, think of keeping your follow through short. Long follow-throughs are for longer shots.


———————

One more look at the side by side differences – interesting to note the shaft position as he prepares for release.  Surprising how bowed that left wrist is considering how open the clubface is at the top.

 

 

Posted in Shotmaking Corner | No Comments »

John Updike – Golf Writings

Oct 11th, 2012 by

Much can be learned about our fellow citizens from their experiences in the game of golf. It’s not just whether they play or not, it’s how they play – their thought patterns, responses to disappointment, willingness to gamble, etc. In the case of John Updike, we are offered a more intimate look at the inner dialogue of an extraordinary man and ordinary golfer. Conflict, self doubt, compassion, and sensitivity to the suffering of the common man – the same themes that dominate many of Updike’s great novels – are observed consistently in the descriptions of his 30+ year love affair with the game. Credit to David Owen and Golf Digest for selecting and reprinting these excerpts.

———————————

It was years ago, on a little dog-leg left, downhill. Apple trees were in blossom. Or the maples were turning; I forget which. My drive was badly smothered, and after some painful wounded bounces found rest in the deep rough at the crook of the dog- leg. My second shot, a 9-iron too tensely gripped, moved a great deal of grass. The third shot, a smoother swing with the knees nicely flexed, moved the ball perhaps 12 feet out onto the fairway. The lie was downhill. The distance to the green was perhaps 230 yards at this point. I chose (of course) a 3-wood. The lie was not only downhill but sidehill. I tried to remember some tip about sidehill lies; it was either (1) play the ball farther forward from the center of the stance, with the stance more open, or (2) play the ball farther back, off a closed stance, or (3) some combination. I compromised by swinging with locked elbows and looking up quickly, to see how it turned out. A divot the size of an undershirt was taken some 18 inches behind the ball. The ball moved a few puzzled inches. Now here comes my great shot. Utterly demented by frustration, I swung as if the club were an axe with which I was reducing an orange crate to kindling wood. Emitting a sucking, oval sound, the astounded ball, smitten, soared far up the fairway, curling toward the fat part of the green with just the daintiest trace of a fade, hit once on the fringe, kicked smartly toward the flagstick, and stopped rolling two feet from the cup. I sank the putt for what my partner justly termed a “remarkable six.”

———————————

Basically, I want to be alone with my golf.

I don’t mind my partner and opponents being there – they are, in a sense, part of the necessary scenery – but to have a couple of youthful (usually) strangers also in attendance turns the game into a mob sport. My golf is so delicate, so tenuously wired together with silent inward prayers, exhortations and unstable visualizations, that the sheer pressure of an additional pair of eyes crumbles the whole rickety structure into rubble. What is the caddie thinking? keeps running through my mind, to the exclusion of all else. And, How he must hate me! Or perhaps, with the last foozled 3-wood, I have passed into a netherworld beneath his contempt. My wish to please the fellow becomes obsessive and counterproductive, one of golf’s magic maxims being that the harder you try, the worse you play.

Imagine writing a poem with a sweating, worried-looking boy handing you a different pencil at the end of every word. My golf, you may say, is no poem; nevertheless, I keep wanting it to be one.

———————————

The truth is, I wish golf were half as popular, the way it was when I took up the game 30-odd years ago. For in those decades, in the area where I live north of Boston, the number of public golf courses has increased not at all, and courses that used to be a breeze to play have become simply hellish.

I was lucky enough to have been allowed to join, before the boom became quite so thunderous, a private club. It had been a relaxed sort of place – a shaggy old layout where Willie Anderson had won an Open or two when Teddy Roosevelt was president (of the United States, not the club). You could walk the 18 without seeing more than that number of other golfing groups. The same guy who cut the lawn in front of the veranda was the greenkeeper, and the sun and the chinch bugs were pretty much allowed to have their way with the verdure, and the underground pipes installed in the days of Bobby Jones had become pure ferric oxide, but, on balance, who terribly cared? On a balmy summer day, there was still nothing in the world to come between you and par except your own ineptitude. Golf’s gift to the spirit is space; and the space in this case was organically designed and blessedly, blissfully underpopulated.

Alas, progress has found us out. The old course is a treasure, and the secret is out. Golf is booming, and yet something has gone from the game, something of naturalness and ease.

Golf used to be kind of a breather, and it has become more and more hard breathing.

———————————

I confess that I have gotten so caught up in the gimme game that, rather than risk missing a four-footer, I have asked my partner to putt out so that I could slap my now-meaningless putt triumphantly away. I have even inwardly prayed that my opponent sink his long putt so that the testing one in front of my would no longer matter. I want my putts not to matter becomes the bottom line, and if this isn’t the formula for golf gutlessness and the crunch-time yips, then Jack Nicklaus never won a major.

———————————

December always holds some mild-enough days. The foursome, thinned perhaps to a mere threesome or twosome, meets by the boarded-up clubhouse, exhilarated to have an entire golf course to itself. There are no tee markers, no starting times, no scorecards, no gasoline carts – just golf-mad men, wearing wool hats and two sweaters each, moving on their feet. The season’s handicap computer has been disconnected, so the sole spur to good play is rudimentary human competition – a simple best-ball nassau or 50-cent game of skins, its running tally carried in the head of the accountant or retired banker in the group. You seem to be, in December golf, reinventing the game, in some rough realm predating 15th-century Scotland.

The last swing feels effortless, and the ball vanishes dead ahead, gray lost in gray, right where the 18th flag would be. The secret of golf has been found at last, after eight months of futilely chasing it. Now, the trick is to hold it in mind, all the indoor months ahead, without its melting away.

———————————

Golf camaraderie, like that of astronauts and Antarctic explorers, is based on a common experience of transcendence; fat or thin, scratch of duffer, we have been somewhere together where nongolfers never go.

———————————

One is never tired while playing golf. Afterwards, yes, and beforehand, very possibly, but while the score is mounting and the tees and fairways and greens are passing underfoot, fatigue is magically held at bay. I have flown overnight to London, taken the morning commuter plane from Heathrow up to Edinburgh, and driven several hours through a winding chain of villages to a golf course, delirious with jet lag. But once I stepped with my group of groggy Yanks onto the springy turf of the first tee, a rejuvenating exhilaration set in, dissipating fatigue as does the sun the mists of morning. We frisked around like a pack of schoolboys, and only after the 18th hole, in the creaking leather armchairs of the clubhouse bar, partaking of lulling liquors, did we feel our years again.

And in this country, too, the after effects of a short night’s sleep and a premature arising are suspended during play.

———————————

RIP John Updike 1932-2009

Photos: David Owen and Henry Horenstein/Corbis

Posted in Books / Manuscripts / Art | 5 Comments »

Older Posts »