Who is a comparable player to Rahm historically? As Brunson would say "the weight" of the guy. I'll think of something.

Faldo

No. Just no.

Not taking anything away from Morikawa.

But no.

Well done Morikawa, but that was a sorry showing by Louie in the final round. Leading after rounds 1-3, leading the tour in putting all year, sweetest swing in golf... then shoots +1 when it counts most. Just seems to happen over and over with him. Doesn't implode just does nothing to win.

Yep. Really pissed . He just can’t go for more than2.5 days . Never backing him again

Years ago if Louie had played the same first 3 rounds he's probably up 3 or 4 and could cruise in to a victory. Now, he's up 1 and he needs another solid round to finish it.

I don't think he's fallen back much, just that guys like Morikawa, Koepka and Rahm (and Spieth when he runs hot) are simply that much better.

To be fair he was playing in an era when euro/international golf was pretty weak, and not a lot of US players were making the journey to the British Isles.

Regarding Zalitoris, there are drills he can do to significantly improve his putting. First thing is get rid of bringing the putter back so far inside. he has no chance to be consistent with that. I would recommend giving up on the gimmick stuff as well but I don't know what he has gone thru to get to this point. Maybe too many chefs in the kitchen has put his mental state in a flux.

He has the yips. That ain't not backing off. It's a serious mental disease. He needs to go back to decade immediately and think about the fact that pros only make about 99.4% of their putts from 2.8 feet. #expectationmanagement #dispersion

The yips ended Tom Watson's run at the top of the game. I blame his domineering wife.

It was the wine.

Yeah I guess just the yips with Z. I've never seen such a move in the backstroke even by Charles Barkley ilk, lol. Watson was the drinking yeah, didn't he cop to it in a memoir??

Not sure what the point is. Everyone is familiar with the Hogan legend, and that his execution and dedication was sick. There is a reason why, playing with Nicklaus, he said young Jack was playing a game that he was unfamiliar with. And that's 60 years ago. With the incredible amount of analysis and study of the swing due to the insane money involved done since, it only makes sense it is evolving to new levels.

I think you are referring to the Bobby Jones quote on observing Nicklaus playing a game "with which I'm not familiar".

Hogan, paired with Nicklaus for the final 36 of the US Open, commented afterward that if "[Nicklaus] had known how to win, he would have won by 7 shots." Nicklaus, leading with 9 holes to play, ended up losing by 2 after 3 putting twice. Hogan, who at one point made a string of 35 greens in regulation without collecting a birdie, was tied for the lead but spun a wedge on 17 green back into the water and ended up losing by 4.

A golf instructor showed me an old 5 iron that supposedly was in Hogan's bag in the late 50s. The grip was oversized (maybe not the original), the shaft seemed as long as a 3 iron (Hogan believed that shorted players should use longer shafts), and the club face seemed not much bigger than a golf ball. I might have just as much success trying to hit a ball with a razor blade.

You should see the drivers they used back then.

Yup, yup ... looks like you are right. I could have lost something betting on that as a trivia question as I thought it was said after a competitive round together ... and that couldn't be Jones.

I think there is interesting fodder for golf GOAT here. Four of the legends Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods in terms of era dominance all make interesting cases (other more modern players elevated the level of play, of course). For Hogan the combination of the religious nature of it and the legendary ball striking met up with some difficult resistance in terms of major wins. This because he never won one until age 34 I think, then a bunch of them got cancelled for WWII in his prime dominance era, then the injury year, then the probably decreased longevity due to injury after-effects when aging.

So when I say Morikawa is striking the ball (perhaps) better than Hogan, it isn't capriciously. He's got 10 more years to see how many majors ahead of Hogan's major calendar he can get, 2-0 right now, and this allows for some increase in striking for this legend-to-be who, like Hogan, doesn't do it with short game generally speaking. Rare.

For win rate on PGA tour check out Bobby Locke. In 59 tour events between 1947-49 Locke won 11 times. He was then banned for missing commitments to tournaments, but many thought that was just a ruse to get him off the tour. He continues to hold the record for largest winning margin for a PGA tour event, 16 shots.

He was not the best ball striker but his putting was beyond good. He was able to hook putts thru thick bermuda grass, common at the time as agronomists had not developed the cultivars we have today. After winning a tournament, he was asked how he could miss a 3 foot putt late in the round, and on the very next hole make a 40 footer. His reply: "the putt I made wasn't harder, just longer. Don't you see?" His famous hickory shafted putter was replicated by Slazenger, but his original putter has not been discovered and is likely lost for the ages. Gary Player claims he knows Locke's putting technique, but I have never seen Player able to put the kind of spin on the ball required to hook the ball that Locke was able to do.

Locke would go on to win 4 British Opens, and only returned to the US for the US Open, which he never won. I only bring up Locke because he was banned when Hogan began his great run. Although I don't feel Locke was a threat to Hogan's dominance, Locke possibly could have won another 20-25 events (and possibly a major or 2) and be thought of as a great player of that era.

IMO comparing Hogan's ball striking with Morikawa is like comparing Djokovic's return of serve vs. Jimmy Connors or Andre Agassi. Equipment plays a big role, and golf equipment of 60+ years ago is quite a bit different than today.

And how many modern players could pull off this shot:

Nobody even carries a 1 iron anymore so I guess it would be close to impossible.

A 219 yard 1-iron with the wind helping? Nope nobody is hitting that today. It was a super shot for its era and the situation. Every player on tour has hit the stick or holed out from 200+ so what is the point? It's an iconic moment ... not some kind of shot other players can't hit. Meanwhile there are a lot of shots the old-timers can't hit that are played routinely today.

The Locke story is interesting ... I didn't know much about it. Is there evidence of surrepticious reasons for why?

Yeah equipment is maybe half of it and the athletes half, something like that.

This is objectively false. All you have to do is listen to that youtube ad (for like a golf masterclass) where tiger talks about how shot shaping is gone from the game bc the ball flies so straight.

Per Nicklaus himself, the wind was in and from the left. So much so he wasn’t sure if 1-iron was enough club. And this from the longest player in the game at that time.

219 yards into the wind, brisk conditions at sea level. Probably playing 240.

He said it was into the wind, but look at the flag on the video. Obv could have been a swirling wind. Still it's just a very difficult shot that any pro could pull off some of the time, so I don't get the apparent claim no one else could do it. And I can hook or fade any ball on the market tons.

That's a good catch, it was obviously downwind.

But also looks somewhat into his face based on his hair moving.

We got a real moon landing conspiracy vibe going on in here. Dissecting that video to discover the truth!