Armed With Modern Equipment, Watson Unable To Defeat His Old Geezer Peers At Sunningdale

The premise goes something like this: Tom Watson would not have been competitive at Turnberry had he not been armed with modern technology. Big driver head, Pro-V1, new hip, etc...

True. If he'd shown up with his Ram 3-wood and a balata ball, he probably would not have made the cut!

Actually, the number of what-if's is too long to contemplate, but that didn't stop Mike Stachura from stating "it was his use of modern technology that may have been just as significant in his near victory.

Watson's whip-crackin' swing may seem to hardly have mellowed with age, but let's not suggest that he's playing exactly the way he did 20 or 30 years ago just because he's getting more Omega 3s in his diet, is still as crafty as a boomtown gambler and is sporting an artificial hip that's 58 years younger than the rest of his body (but more on that later). No, you're leaving out one key detail. It's not like the man was tearing his way through all the young bucks at the British Open with a persimmon driver and a forged muscle-back 1-iron. Fact is, modern equipment technology played no small part in helping Watson compete with men half his age.

I guess to accept this premise you'd have to contemplate the possibility of someone showing up with a retro set. And that's not going to happen, so can we really credit any portion of his success to his modern clubs?

This seems to be one of those "all relative deals."

Then again, if you armed the rest of the field with 70s equipment there might not have even been a playoff. Maybe the old coot would have won by 10 because the new stuff had made modern golfers less skilled?

In other words, maybe technology actually prevented his true skill from showing and let the young guys keep up with Old Tom?

Comments

[Taylor Anderson]

Geoff, you're exactly right. It was an anomaly - a fantastic anomaly - that allowed Watson to compete against these guys. Well, that and the style of golf that allows the weaker, but smarter, player more options to compete against the power game.

I have no idea how they came to the conclusion that modern equipment played a major role given the sample set, particularly since you point out that EVERYBODY was playing with modern equipment. And if it was the equipment, why has Watson not been viable in an Open in 15 years? In fact, he's missed the cut in 6 of the last 11 Opens he's played in.

If modern equipment played such a huge role in allowing Watson to compete this week, why has he missed the cut in 12 of his last 13 Masters? Stachura goes on about how far Watson is hitting the ball - even out driving Cink on average. He acknowledges because Watson hit so many fairways that the firm and fast conditions likely contributed to the numbers, but then quickly credits technology for allowing him to hit so many fairways. But if that were the case, why has Watson been totally and completely unable to even make a cut at the Masters? You could claim that it's his putting, but there are few in the field that have played Augusta as many times as Watson and would know the greens as well as him.

Watson has played in 24 majors since turning 50. This was his second top 10 in that time - the previous at the 2000 PGA at the age of 50. He's missed the cut 13 times in those 24 majors.

It wasn't technology (well, except maybe the hip) that allowed Watson to compete - it was purely an anomaly.

[question?]

Taylor...sorry, but your argument is false. Claiming that technology was not a factor in past tournaments because of missed cuts, completely eliminates putting from the equation. In fact, in many of those events, Watson's tee to green game was wonderful only to be followed with horrendous putting. Technology has let many players play better later in life. A 150 cc. persimmon head attatched to a 140 gm. 43" shaft is far more difficult for a senior ( or anyone else for that matter) than a 460 cc. titanium head attached to a 65gm. 45" shaft! The reality is technology helped Watson, but not nearly as much as the fact that for 71 holes he putted brilliantly. Wait! Was that a high moi face balance putter he used? Is that considered new technology?

[Phil the Author]

There is no question but that technology helped Tom Watson... but what sort of equipment were all those other "young bucks" playing, hickory shafted clleks with featheries?

They were ALL playing the SAME EQUIPMENT. To say that TW had an advantage for doing so is stupid in the extreme...

[The O]

Has equipment changed the game? Of course. Is equipment the reason Watson almost won? NO. Links golf is different. If you haven't played there, you really can't quite fathom it. Modern golf is a differnt game than classic links. Tee it high and hit a frozen rope 320 in the air and stop on a dime. Hit wedge to green. Putt. Repeat. Watson has said point blank that he cannot play that game (Augusta, US Open, regular Tour, etc.) But links is different. Hit it down the fairway with a three iron. Let it bounce. Hit 6 iron to green or near it. Putt or chip as needed. Look at how few drivers the guys hit. If you need to hit the opening shot 240, you play the hybrid or long iron that is right for you. Maybe Tiger did that with a 6 iron. But if Watson can hit 4 iron to the same spot, advantage gone.

Plus, to be fair, Tom played really, really well tee to green and on the greens. When you're on, you're on.

[Wayne]

And let's not forget that this equipment debate has been going on for at least 160 years since the gutta-percha/feathery feud of 1849 between Old Tom Morris and Allan Robertson.

[dsl]

I don't know that you can really say it's all relative in this case. The big thing here is that Watson is much older than the rest of the field. At his peak, he was also much better than, say, 99% of the field. Are we saying that modern equipment provides the exact same advantage to Watson as it does to every other man in the field? I would argue that a man of Watson's pedigree (and age) can gain more advantage using new equipment than many of the others in the field. If you follow this line of thinking, then maybe Stachura's argument makes some sense. Playing Devil's advocate here...

[thusgone]

dsl: i take your point, but the advantage watson would have is his skill, not the equipment. also, your point would seem to contradict the claim that modern equipment has decreased the plus factor given to a more skilled golfer.

[Phil the Author]

Part of the problem with playing "devil's advocate"is that it is usually more argu,mentative than substantive and is so in this case.

Watson would gain LESS from the use of modern equipment than the younger players. They are in better physical condition and far more able to employ the maximum of their abilities than Watson.

A 20-25 year youger Watson would gain an incredible advantage over the 59 year old...

[Taylor Anderson]

question, you provide no data to back up your argument. If you can find statistical data that says that his "tee to green game was wonderful only to be followed with horrendous putting", then we can have a debate over that. You don't play "wonderful tee to green golf" and miss cut after cut, after cut on a course you've played for decades - I don't care how bad a putter you are.

You say, "Technology has let many players play better later in life."

My retort is, yes it has. But it has also done the same thing for those younger in life, thereby nullifying that advantage.

[LC Lambrecht]

Tom Watson outplayed 154 of the world's best golfers for four days at Turnberry. They played by the same rules, the same links and the equipment allowed by the rules of golf at the time of the tournament. How does this argument concerning equipment come into play and attempt to taint the great event we experienced at the 2009 Open Championship?
Let the great things of sport survive-we have enough problems to deal with.

[Hawkeye]

Geoff, if everybody were still playing 70's equipment, Watson wouldn't have had a chance, since the young bucks would have been better ball strikers and would have handled the windy links conditions better than they did now.

But I have to agree with Stachura, although I have more of a huch than hard evidence. Older players just seem to hang around longer than they did before, and it can't all be due to better physique and stronger motivation. Nicklaus said that he lost the high, soft long iron in his late 40s, but Kenny Perry (a far inferior player) hasn't lost a single part of his long game at 49. Judging from Turnberry, neither has Watson at 59.

[Taylor Anderson]

Hawkeye, Watson has the same number of top 10 finishes in majors in his 50s that Nicklaus had - two. Ironically, they both came nearly at the same age, 50 and 59 for Watson and 50 and 58 for Nicklaus.

Nicklaus played in far more tournaments in his 50s than Watson - 35. He made the cut in 22 of them (63%). Watson, despite having a decade of technological advantages, has made the cut in only 46% of the majors he's played in his 50s.

[Hawkeye]

Yes, Taylor, but that's likely because Nicklaus never contracted a serious case of the yips.

All I'm saying is that modern equipment helps to compensate the loss of motor skills and athletic ability that naturally comes with age. Look at the 17th hole at Turnberry - Watson hit the green in two with a hybrid three out of four rounds, once from the rough. Would he have managed that today, armed with a muscle back, heavy-shafted one-iron? I doubt it, but many of the younger players could have done it. So, modern equipment helps ageing golfers. Holing a few putts clearly helps, too.

[Wayne]

But Watson has refused ot use the one newer piece of technology that would really help him - the long putter or belly putter because he believe it is "not golf".

[Tighthead]

He had Denis Watson's 1970s wife at both events.