Lettter From Saugerties: The U.S. Open and Tiger
Our friend Frank Hannigan, the former USGA Executive Director, wrote after the thrilling U.S. Open to put matters in his unique perspective.
Dear Geoff:
Golf was not invented at Torrey Pines. Nor did it die on Tuesday when Tiger Woods revealed he is badly damaged and can't play for the balance of 2008.
Ben Hogan, hit straight on by a fast moving bus, in the winter of 1948, after winning the US Open, had to sit our all of 1949. Golf survived. The four major winners in 1949 were Sam Snead (twice), Bobby Locke and Cary Middlecoff. Moreover, I'm sick of hearing of the huge money game being defined as "golf." As in "Golf is in dreadful shape with Tiger out. The British Open might just as well be Quad Cities.
By the way, golf has been stagnant during the era of Tiger Woods in terms of rounds played or golf balls sold. In Hogan's best days, golf boomed.
I'm not ready to acknowledge that Tiger is the best player ever. America has produced four incredible golfers: Bobby Jones, Hogan and Jack Nicklaus. Jones was such an anomaly it's impossible to compare him with anyone. He was an amateur who stopped playing competitive golf at age 28. While he was the best player in world - way in front of Sarazen and Hagen - he picked up degrees from Georgia Tech (engineering), Harvard (English Lit) and Emory (Law).
Hogan's total of nine majors was lessened by away time. After returning from his bus accident, Hogan won the 1950, 1951 and 1953 US Opens. Your readers will recognize the most famous photograph in golf ever taken was of Hogan from behind by Life Magazine 's brilliant Hy Peskin. He was hitting a 1 iron into the 18th green at Merion. As was his wont, Hogan did not miss the fairway or the green and went on to win a 3 man playoff
Two years later, with no special enthusiasm, Hogan went on to his lone British Open and won at Carnoustie.
(A typical Hogan story: As he rested in what passed for a locker room at Carnoustie he was approached by a dignified man bearing a card. The man said he was representing Paul, king of Belgium. His majesty had read Mr. and Mrs.Hogan were coming to the continent for a week. Would they like to stay in his castle and perhaps play a round of golf. Hogan looked and said "I don't play golf when I'm on vacation.")
He took nearly a week to reach Great Britain by ship. Few Americans played. But let's pose a counter factual: suppose there were jets so that Hogan could play in every British Open from 1946 through 1960. (He had missed 1942 through 1945 because of World War II. ) I do believe he would have won some.
As for Nicklaus, with his 18 majors and 19 runner-ups in majors, I resort to another hypothetical. It is that Tiger Woods comes along in 1970 rather than in the late 90s. Nicklaus just might have revved up his game a little. He was the most competitive man I ever met. He thought he should win everything. In his later years, he played with Greg Norman as his partner in one those silly season events. They were way behind after 3 rounds. Nicklaus peered at the scoreboard in our ABC booth and allowed as how they could get right back in it by shooting about 51 in the last round in a scramble format. Norman looked at Jack as if he was crazy.
Jack had an approach based on his belief that only 5 or 6 other players could stand the heat in the final round of a major whereas "I can always play my game". In my opinion, that's why he was runner-up so often. He would be a touch cautious, get behind after 3 rounds and then come roaring back Too late.
In a technical sense, Nicklaus was in relative terms and considering the change in equipment, about the same length as Tiger but infinitely straighter. Jack was an astonishing fairway wood player. Alas, there are no fairway wood (or metal) shots today. Their iron play was equally terrific. It is accepted that Tiger is the world's best putter. Nicklaus was not bad. The late David Marr and others regarded Jack as the best putter in his glory days.
Tiger is miles ahead when it comes to playing from 120 yards on in. Lee Trevino said "God gave Jack everything except a wedge." Though I continue to think Jack would have improved his short game if it had been necessary to play against Tiger.
We hope for a complete recovery for Tiger. When he returns it will be said on ESPN that he has reinvented the game.
What actually happened last week was a young man on the USGA staff, Mike Davis, just about turned water into wine in preparing Torrrey Pines. It is a golf course that is not and never will be exceptional. What I learned is that, given a few million dollars and enough property to expand the course to 7,400 yards, Mike Davis could make any of hundreds of courses pass as US Open courses.
Considering the justifiable praise Mike Davis earned last week, it could be that he will be tempted other entities with even more money than the USGA has. I would caution him: be careful. It's not so easy out in the real world.Frank Hannigan
Sunday, June 22, 2008 at 10:50 PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (32)
okay, 14 majors and all those junior championships by age 32 is pretty impressive, as well.
"By the way, golf has been stagnant during the era of Tiger Woods in terms of rounds played or golf balls sold. In Hogan's best days, golf boomed."
Yeah. There were very few TV sets in those days, and not as many attractive distractions for a person's free time.
"It is that Tiger Woods comes along in 1970 rather than in the late 90s. Nicklaus just might have revved up his game a little. He was the most competitive man I ever met."
And Tiger couldn't have ramped up his game in response to Jack? C'mon, Frank, stop living in the past.
"What actually happened last week was a young man on the USGA staff, Mike Davis, just about turned water into wine in preparing Torrrey Pines. It is a golf course that is not and never will be exceptional. What I learned is that, given a few million dollars and enough property to expand the course to 7,400 yards, Mike Davis could make any of hundreds of courses pass as US Open courses."
This is no revelation. It is what the pipe and tweed crowd didn't want the hoi polloi to know all these years -- keep the serfs ignorant, lest they discover that the sacred rota of private clubs might have been vastly overrated all these years. To speak of it was blasphemy.
4p
Thanks...this what happens when the editing job is left to me.
Geoff
Comparing eras is a tricky business, but I don't see, as Frank seems to imply, that those who praise Tiger's accomplishments are lessening the accomplishments of Jones, Hogan and Nicklaus. Those names are constantly mentioned when Tiger chalks up another win, especially in a major, to help put what Tiger has done in perspective. They are not forgotten, as Frank seems to be saying. It didn't seem to me like Byron Nelson felt that his accomplishments were being lessened when he was asked over and over again about Tiger. Nelson gloried in both Tiger's feats and in reliving his own.
Enjoy Tiger while you can. Just like Jones, Hogan and Nicklaus before him, Tiger's best play won't last forever (though it almost seemed to in Jack's case). One day in the future, a couple generations down the road, that period's Frank Hannigan will be noting how that day's present superstar is no Tiger Woods, etc., etc. Such is the cycle of golf and life.
..FIDO.
ES
I disagree, however, that golf has been "stagnant" during the Tiger Woods era. I still remember the "Tiger Boom" after the 1997 Masters win. Looking back, it seemed that EVERYONE wanted to play golf.
I cannot argue that the golf industry has not become/is stagnant since then, but for those last years of the 90's there's no question there was a boom.
And that's why, when some scribes pen that this was Tiger's biggest win ever, I disagree. Biggest for Tiger himself, sure. But for the game of golf? That was Tiger's win in '97.
Today's younger sports fans more or less figure their heroes are the best.
Tiger's "one of the best", he's not the "Best". That perhaps is an insoluble question, "Who was the best"?
All I know is
-I really don't know squat about to put Tom Morris, Jr. into the picture
-Jones did it in his spare time and puked a lot, then quit real early.
-Nelson quit while he was ahead, was a bundle of nerves, too and arguably played against weaker opponents (I say balderdash to that last part)
-Hogan really dominated and came back from his last few oranges and a car with stolen tires before he nearly died in a car crash and overcame more than most of you can begin to fathom. He was one tough son-of-a-bitch. As best I know, Earl never met Hogan, sure seems like he didn't.
-Nicklaus was stupid good and forever, too. Look it up if you weren't there.
-Woods is a work in progress. Woods is his own worst enemy. His swing has been killing his game and he is unfortunately surrounded by syncophant arse-sniffers from his "team" to various media who have declared him (and Michelle Wie) the "Best" since age 17. I wish they'd just let the legends write themselves.
Only time will give us the answer, we must be patient.
Jack Nicklaus's game was ramped up. That's why he is considered the greatest golfer in the modern era, and by many the greatest golfer ever.
Jack fueled this last year when asked about Tiger's major victories. He said something about having a family, and not really being focused later in his career, and how had he known about Tiger, he probably would have tried to win more majors.
I have all the respect in the world for Jack, but baloney. He won 18 majors. He "could have" won more, but he didn't.
The "could have" argument applies to Jones and Nelson (retired young) and Hogan (accident). But not to Jack.
It seems to me that the greatest players - in any era - are those who come through when they are "expected" to win before the major event begins. Meeting expectations - not just waiting for "my week" define greatness. . . Very few have done that - in my view - only Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods (Jones before my time) were truly dominant during the periods of their careers when they were "expected" to win.
Both Jones and Hogan's "expectation" periods were relatively short. Wood's is in it's 12th year - having won 14 majors while Nicklaus won his first 17 in 17 years (his last coming 6 years later.) So, Tiger and Jack are somewhat equal in their major records while Tiger clearly is more dominant in other PGA Tour events.
So, let's wait for the completion of Tiger's 17th season - 2013 - and see how his record compares to Jack's. . . My guess - Tiger 20 majors and 85 Tour wins.
As usual your abiltiy to digest what you read is highly selective, to spell it out for you then is then and now is now. It started kinda early.
Now: You find out when the President of Indonesia farts almost instantly, if you care.
Then: It took until the next day for much of Arnold Palmer's family to know that he won the 1960 USGA Open.
Now: Earlier this year we learned that Tiger was going to win the Grand Slam (calendar year) no problem.
Then: How long did it take for the news to reach of the UK victories of B Jones in 1930?
Now: Tiger wins USGA Open as amputee
then: Hogan overcomes furuncle to have Open handed to him. (wink, wink)
Now: Media of several sorts constantly tell us Tiger is "The Best". Why? More readers. Writers get more pay and can advance their careers based on popularity. Media is like politics, dirty business, lots of agendas. Hint: don't consider Tiger's press releases as full disclosure.
As Bill said, wait and see if he's "The Best", not yet. very, very, very, very good, not best yet.
Bill really can't understand why you would have a problem with that.
Tiger is the absolute best.
I guess my brother's real problem with this quote is that nobody was declaring him the "best golfer ever" when he was 17.
You don't seem to like the ass-kissers in his inner circle, and in the media. That's fine; you can just ignore them.
But it seemed odd to me<BS><BS>my brother that you want them to be quiet about it, while he is in the process of proving that he is the best golfer ever.
The golfers mentioned were the best of their time.
That is the best any could do.
Different eras produce different competition, equipment, courses and environments.
It is common to compare records.
However, even that is valid only if we accept breaking the record is at least as difficult as setting it.
Even something as well defined as running 100 meters has variables. Running shoes and the track itself has changed.
The many variables in golf preclude any valid comparisons across eras.
By current measures, Woods is the best.
That is not to say he is or is not the best ever.
Like others, he is just the best of his time.
But why does he dislike Torrey? Obviously taste is a personal judgment, but I think that basically there is a general resentment of courses that the public can play as opposed to private courses. Maybe the bunkers are not as beautiful as Tillinghast bunkers, but what about the ocean views. There are some great holes there, and it produced a great tournament, and it is much better for the fans than some recent venues (especially Oakmont, where fans could not see much -- although it was great on TV).
Any relation to Harold?
Mike,
Thanks for the information on Hogan's medical problems. My admiration for him is raised even further.
That's a media-generated story, and it's frankly not that interesting to me.
It is interesting to me that Tiger won the US Open, and more so that he won with a bad knee and leg. But I just skip over the rest.
PS Yes, I have a job; I'm at work right now! In the software industry, this is called "doing a build". I type a command that builds my software, and I have between 1 minute and 15 minutes to spare...
At some point down thr road, someone else will enter this debate, and it will become, "Is ????? the best ever?"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.