Latest news with #Arkush
Forbes
03-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
Book Review: All-Time Golf Greats Via Michael Arkush's ‘The Golf 100'
HOYLAKE, ENGLAND - APRIL 19: A view of the Claret Jug in front of the clubhouse at Royal Liverpool ... More Golf Club on April 19, 2023 in Hoylake, England. (Photo by) In Men at Work, George Will observed that 'The history of baseball is littered with stories of failures by players who thought that their natural physical endowments would be sufficient.' The previous assertion was what made Will's book such a fascinating read. It never occurred to me that the most interesting aspects of baseball were often the unseen strategies at work, and that were crafted by savants in the dugout and on the field. Baseball was so cerebral, and knowing this made it so much more fun. Will's classic came to mind quite a lot while reading Michael Arkush's excellent new book, The Golf 100: A Spirited Ranking of the Greatest Players of All Time. Hale Irwin (#54 on the list), whom Arkush describes as more competitive than Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan, and even Pete Rose, confirms a la Will with baseball that golf has intensely cerebral qualities. As he put it, 'At this level, it's not about hitting the golf ball. Everyone can do that. It's about the conversation between your mind and your heart.' Which brings up arguably the most interesting aspect of a book that would still be interesting without it: 'promise unfulfilled.' So many players that could do so many remarkable things with clubs in their hands, but who seemingly lost their magical powers on the grandest of stages. Really, how did Fred Couples (#88), described by Arkush as '007 in spikes,' by University of Houston teammate (and CBS announcer) Jim Nantz as someone who had 'no bad side to him,' win but one golf major, the Masters in 1992? It couldn't have been for a lack of talent, but maybe it was for a lack of the proper mind necessary to win the biggest tournaments. Think about what Nantz has observed about Couples, while also contemplating Gary McCord's view that 'you have to have a lot of nasty in you to win the majors.' McCord was talking about Davis Love (#76) who 'only' has one major victory on his resume (the 1997 PGA Championship), but one senses McCord would say the same about Couples. Arkush is plainly apologetic with his routine what-might-have-been comments about golf's greatest players, but realistically they're a feature of the book exactly because they help the reader understand just how mentally challenging golf is, arguably quite a bit more than baseball. The bet is that Will would agree. Baseball is about occasional errors on the field, along with misses and outs at bat, but baseball players have backups, they have relievers, they have other players who can essentially bail them out. Not so in golf. There's no one to fix the seemingly inevitable mental lapses. And rest assured they're inevitable exactly because other than one's caddie (Steve Williams's autobiography was clear that caddies are mathematicians to the players in addition to psychologists), golfers are alone. Every mistake is their own, and this trite truth means few have the consistency of mind to match with their talent. We know this because so many can't-miss golfers missed. About Sergio Garcia (#86), Arkush writes that 'there will always be a feeling that Garcia should have achieved more.' Garcia, like Couples, like Love, has one golf major to his name, the Masters in 2017, but when he was all of 15-years-old, he was part of an exhibition that included Seve Ballesteros (#17) and Jose Maria-Olazabal (seven majors between the two), and it was apparent even then that he hit the ball better than they did. Johnny Miller (#47) is to this day thought by those in the know to have played the best round of golf ever (the final round of the 1973 U.S. Open), Lanny Wadkins (#56) describes him as 'the best player I ever saw,' but he finished with two major wins. Still, in Miller we perhaps find clues as to why greatness isn't always sustained, nor does it keep repeating itself in ways that it at times does in team sports. In Miller's words to Arkush, 'I was just content.' Does success beget relative mediocrity in golf? The question just leads to more questions. It wasn't too long ago that Jordan Spieth (#59) was seemingly unbeatable as the 2nd youngest person (after Jack Nicklaus, no less) to win three different majors before the age of 24. No doubt there have been injuries, but it seems even by Spieth's own admission to come back to the mind. As he explained his fall from the top of the PGA perch to Arkush, 'Once you reach your end goal of something, maybe there's a little bit of a letdown.' It seems like a reasonable explanation, that reaching the top drives the very satisfaction that knocks you back down, but the explanation is unsatisfactory. That's because the work required to get to the top points to the kind of person who wouldn't suddenly rest on laurels. In other words, the reason you (you being the typical person) will never be Garcia, Spieth, or Rory McIlroy (#25) is because you would never put in the effort to become any of the three. About McIlroy, Arkush writes that 'no twenty-first-century golfer, however much it kills me to admit it, has been a bigger disappointment.' Once again, so many disappointments among the 100 greatest golfers of all time. How could that be in a sport populated by players who revere the players of the past more than in any other sport, and who for venerating them, understand intimately the constant about golf's greats that is 'promise unfulfilled'? To be clear, this review doesn't presume to answer the question, and Arkush doesn't himself. That's not a knock, it's just a comment that's pregnant with questions. What is it about a sport that, in Arkush's words, 'promises nothing and often delivers a lot less'? Well, what? To read about how so many of the greats should have won more, but also how some of the greats nearly finished without a major (Couples, 1992, Masters), is to keep searching and wondering. Professional golfers are said to lean Republican. Is that because golf is golf, or is it because golf is golf? As in does golf generally attract a more 'conservative' kind of person comfortable in golf clubs, or precisely because golf promises nothings does it unearth in its professional a conservative mindset that decries handouts from the Commanding Heights exactly because golfers get none? Dustin Johnson (#44) told Arkush that he hopes to be fishing 'with a gold beer' when he's 64. Too laid back, too unlike the greats? Ok, but he's also got two majors to his name. And as readers no doubt know by virtue of clicking on a review about a golf book, Johnson could have had so many more. Promise unfulfilled? Yet he won two majors. You see the paradox? Johnson seemingly lacked the anger of a Michael Jordan, notably told family members after a U.S. Open loss (Chambers Bay) he plainly should have won that 'it's just a golf tournament,' but could someone seemingly that easygoing ever win two majors as is, and contend for so many more? If they're all great ball strikers, but not all of them have the mind or the mental fortitude, they still had it enough to win some majors while nearly winning others. The more that's read about the players, and the more that's written about the players in search of better understanding, the more confused it all becomes, albeit in a good way. Which is a long digression. Writing about the presumed mentally crippling aspects of golf (including satisfaction), it's easy to get away from the purpose of the book. Arkush's ranking is 'spirited,' which is an explicit admission from him that his Top 100 wouldn't resemble that of others. Take Scottie Scheffler alone. He's not listed in the Top 100. Which requires another digression. Explaining how he ranked the players, Arkush is clear that 'one aspect of a player's career would be valued more than any other: how he or she performed in the game's biggest events.' Arkush explains further that the 'majors feature the strongest fields and, more often than not, are staged on the most demanding courses.' Arkush awarded 2,000 points for each major win, 500 for second, 250 for third, etc. Back to Scheffler, major #3 happened just last Sunday. From this, the seemingly obvious explanation for the omission was the latter. Except that before the book went to print Scheffler could already lay claim to two majors (the Masters in 2022 and 2024), along with twelve other PGA Tour wins. Many of the ranked had less of a resume (majors and total tournament wins) than Scheffler even before last Sunday, yet as mentioned, they were ranked. So, while the lack of Scheffler was puzzling (to be clear, Arkush acknowledges the Scheffler omission, and explains it at book's end), the points system was comforting if only because it lent some objectivity to a ranking that surely begs for endless debate. And this presumption about debate comes from a reviewer who hasn't played golf in decades, but who finds the sport and its majors more than interesting. Arkush's book does nothing to dampen interest, while doing a lot to increase it. The rising interest is rooted in the happy fact that while Arkush's rankings have a numeric quality to them, his discussion of each player in the top 100 is anything but numeric. In roughly three pages per golfer, Arkush brings them to life. In 1971, and long after John McDermott (#100) had won two U.S. Opens, he was kicked out of the clubhouse at Merion Golf Club (where the U.S. Open was taking place no less!) after no one noticed who the poorly dressed old man was. Arnold Palmer luckily did, and proceeded to right the wrong. Ken Venturi (#93) was increasingly drowning himself in drink until a bartender told him he was 'wasting his life.' Venture told him 'I will not have another drink until I win again.' Venturi won the 1964 U.S. Open. Larry Nelson (#89) won two PGAs and one U.S. Open despite having never played a round of golf as of age 21. Julius Boros (#53) was an accountant for a Connecticut trucking company before he found his way onto the Tour. On the other hand, Ray Floyd (#29) seemed to enjoy betting on horses more than golf. Luckily his wife Maria let him have it: 'If golf isn't what you want to do for a living, now is the time to get out and think about doing something else. You're not giving it your best.' Sometimes the best people in our lives tell us what we least want to hear… Paul Runyan (#50) had a father who did not approve of his son playing golf, but his son couldn't not do what won him beatings from his father: 'Dad, you can whip me if you want, but it won't do you any good, because I'm going over to the golf course and I'm going to become a golf professional.' In Bernhard Langer's (#94) case, he went to a job placement center outside of Munich in the 1960s as a teen and told them 'I want to be a golf professional.' They must have looked at him like he had one eyebrow while responding, 'We have no documents on golf professional being a recognized job in Germany.' It all speaks to the beauty of the here and now. Runyan's father never saw his son play, while nowadays there aren't just golf professionals, there are golf swing coaches, putting coaches, shrinks, nutritionists, and all manner of other professions associated with the sport's prosperity. According to Arkush, swing coach David Leadbetter was paid a six-figure salary to work with LPGA great Se Ri Pak (#90) on her game. I'm sorry, but prosperity loves people yearning to work outside traditional life norms more than anyone else, and it doesn't come close. Thinking about Runyan some more, it's no reach to say that most readers haven't heard of him, most have heard of Langer, and everyone's heard of players like Crenshaw, Garcia, Couples, etc. This rates mention because readers of the book might be tempted to skip the many ancient names in the book, first half of the twentieth century names, along with the females. It's understandable, but it would be a mistake. There's rewarding, interesting information about each player, male or female. Harold Hilton (#30) smoked as many as 50 cigarettes on days he played golf, Peter Thomson (#55) would supplement his golf income by writing about the tournaments played in for newspapers, and Babe Didrikson Zaharias (#18) was in the estimation of Arkush the greatest athlete of the 20th century. What of Phil Mickelson? He's in so many ways a riddle wrapped in an enigma, or however Churchill put it. Six majors and over fifty PGA wins, but to Arkush he was, and realistically is, 'another all-time great who underachieved.' The list of professionals who can lay claim to six majors is vanishingly small, not to mention no less than six second place U.S. Open finishes. What a resume?! Yet what's strange and understandable at the same time is that if the oddities that took place at the various U.S. Opens (Winged Foot most notably) can be forgotten, what Arkush most seems to be saying is that even forgetting those, someone with Mickelson's talent still should have won many more. Except for what keeps coming up in this most interesting of books. Leaving aside #1 and #2, there's realistically no one in this most mysterious of sports that shouldn't have done better. And that of course includes #1 and #2. Mickelson was the definition of 'can't miss,' but at #13 it should be said he was 'can't miss' who didn't miss. This would especially be true with other rankings not compiled by Arkush and that might grade on a curve of sorts. Figure that Mickelson starred, and starred for a long time in a sport that's so globalized, so well-funded, and that has so many flash-in-the-pan stars who, perhaps due to contentedness, can't maintain the greatness. Yet Mickelson did. It's not just six majors, but six majors beginning in 2004, and ending (?) in 2021. No doubt Arkush understands all of the above, and much better than this reviewer. Which means my one critique of his analysis of both Ernie Els (#27) and Mickelson is that he notes how both unfortunately were at their best when Tiger Woods was at his, hence the fewer majors. This didn't nor does it ring true. For one, we have the can't miss potential of so many other top 100 golfers who somehow didn't reach ten, eight or even three majors, not to mention the arguably more compelling truth that Woods lifted everyone. In other words, absent Woods Mickelson and Els would arguably have won even fewer majors. Arkush at least implicitly acknowledges the possibility of the latter being true when writing about Mickelson, and how he managed to achieve just three top 10 finishes during a ten major stretch when 'Woods retooled his swing and went winless.' The simple truth is that Woods made those he beat so very much better. Mickelson should be so grateful for Woods, so should all who starred at a time when Woods dominated. Arkush's book is a great read for golf fans, mere followers, sports fans in general, or even people solely interested in the human condition. There's so much learning to be had from reading a book that's about golf, but that is truly about so much more.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Top 100 Players Compiled in New Book
Picking golf's top 100 players of all time is not an easy assignment. Just coming up with a formula is hard enough but shuffling through the thousands of players who have played golf, both amateur and professional, over the decades of the game makes the task even more daunting. Advertisement Recently, Michael Arkush wrote a book titled The Golf 100, taking on the difficult task. Spending three years compiling and providing analysis on different players, Arkush brings names known to only golf historians back to life. 'I just was so motivated to write about players I followed as a kid and covered at different publications,' Arkush said, 'I wanted to explore more about their lives, careers, what made them great, what made them flawed.' Cover of The Golf 100 by Michael Arkush The 100 starts with John McDermott and ends with Jack Nicklaus. While some may find Nicklaus's selection as the top player in the game's history controversial, Arkush felt comfortable with his points system, which focused more on majors than normal tour wins. Advertisement The system for majors awarded 2,000 points for each major win, 500 for second place, 250 for third, 100 for fourth, and 50 for fifth. Non-major wins garnered 300 points, and the U.S. Amateur and British Amateur received points as well. Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods smile during the R&A Celebration of Champions four-hole challenge at the 150th Open Championship golf tournament at St. Andrews Old Course Schumacher-Imagn Images Arkush also added or subtracted points in certain cases due to their impact on the game, using Francis Ouimet as an example of a player who, on his strict merits, would not make the list, but if you factor in intangibles, deserved to be in the top 100. Ouimet is 20th. Lastly, Arkush incorporated women into the ranking, starting with Mickey Wright at sixth, sandwiched between Arnold Palmer at fifth and Sam Snead at seventh. Advertisement All told, 14 women, including Babe Didrikson Zaharias, Patty Berg, and Glenna Collett Vare, made the list. Oddly, some players have not made the list as of yet, with Colin Montgomery, Justin Thomas, and Scottie Scheffler on the outside looking in. With the paperback version coming out next year, Arkush will accumulate points up until this year's Tour Championship, which, depending on their success in the remainder of the year, may find both Scheffler and Thomas in the mix. But even after all the painstaking analysis, even Arkush was surprised by some players and their golf success. 'People whom I did not really think that much about, I realized are top players, Leo Deagle, Walter Travers, Jerry Travers, guys like that, who are all-time based on the numerical system I came up with,' Arkush said. 'Harold Hilton. I knew about him as a great amateur but didn't realize how great he was. John Ball, the English Amber, My God, what a career he had, nine majors. I'm counting his eight British amateurs, and he also won a British Open.' Advertisement Arkush also gave bonus points for players where fate had a hand in their careers, like Young Tom Morris dying at 24 or Tony Lima's death in a plane crash at 32. Is it a fair assessment to provide players with points on their potential versus actual accomplishments? Picking golf's top 100 players is just part of a complicated process. Some players are ranked, and some are not even included, which makes the book an interesting read and worth the price if you're a golf fan. Link to the Penguin Random House Website: Related: Kiwi Ryan Fox Wins Myrtle Beach Classic in Playoff
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
'The Golf 100' isn't so much a pecking order of greatest players. It's an index of lively profiles
'The Golf 100' isn't so much a pecking order of greatest players. It's an index of lively profiles From left to right, Jack Nicklaus, Mickey Wright, Tiger Woods and Bobby Jones are among author Michael Arkush's greatest players of all time. (Photo Illustration by Los Angeles Times, Photos by Associated Press) From John McDermott's fragile psyche to the sustained excellence of Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods — or Woods and Nicklaus; no spoiler here on who's No. 1 — this countdown of the top golfers is less a list than an index of insightful, lively profiles rife with anecdotes centered on their most joyous and miserable moments. Advertisement "The Golf 100: A spirited ranking of the greatest players of all time" is the 16th title by author Michael Arkush, most of them from the sports realm including New York Times bestsellers "The Last Season" with Phil Jackson and "The Big Fight" with Sugar Ray Leonard. This one is all Arkush and displays his storytelling — some sweet, some savory, a few bitter — in bite-size pieces. He includes greats from the early 20th century. He includes greats from other countries. He includes women. Why? Because their stories are compelling, even if ranking them became messy. So, yes, there are 100 in all, spread over 366 pages. Lists of the greatest golfers aren't a novel conceit. GolfDay published one a year ago. Golf Digest has its own. Folks have concocted lists on Reddit. Bleacher Report took a swing. There is even the website Advertisement Read more: Looking for a tee time? Here are 9 pleasant public golf courses in L.A. Times sportswriter Houston Mitchell got more than 12,000 readers to respond in 2009 to a poll ranking golfers. The top five are among Arkush's top 10, although not remotely in the same order. Most rankings are based on point systems, assigning weighted numbers to categories such as total tournaments won, top-10 finishes, player of the year awards, career longevity and performance in the four majors — the U.S. Open, Masters, British Open and PGA Championship. Arkush prioritized the majors, writing in the forward that they "feature the strongest fields and, more often than not, are staged on the most demanding courses. When history is on the line." Advertisement Still, Arkush allowed himself license after covering professional golf for 30 years (he was an entertainment reporter for The Times from 1988 to 1995). Once the numbers were tabulated, he shuffled the deck by employing subjective criteria such as a golfer's impact or contributions to the sport. "I was similar to a juror who, despite a stern warning from the judge not to let evidence deemed inadmissible be a factor in the verdict, couldn't help its affecting his thinking in one way or another," Arkush wrote. Read more: L.A. touts success at blocking tee time brokers from city golf courses An example is his inclusion of Francis Ouimet, a name unfamiliar to all but the most serious golf history buffs. He won the 1913 U.S. Open at the tender age of 20 over Harry Vardon, a British golf titan credited with inventing the modern grip and swing. Bobby Jones, the epitome of class, came along next, and the pendulum soon swung to the U.S. side of the Atlantic. Advertisement Like so many writers, Arkush was loath to let numbers get in the way of a good yarn, beginning with ranking McDermott at No. 100. The cheeky son of a mailman became the first American to win the U.S. Open in 1911 — at age 19 — one year after he finished second to Scottish immigrant Alex Smith, telling him as they exited the course, "I'll get you next year, you big tramp." McDermott's penchant for popping off soon got him in trouble, and that was followed by a steep fall. He embarrassed the more genteel of his countrymen by bragging about his Open victories in the presence of Vardon. Then he was saved by a lifeboat after being a victim of a shipwreck. Then he lost a fortune in the stock market. Then he was committed to a sanitarium in 1916 and was never the same. Arkush concludes the profile describing a chance meeting between an elderly McDermott and a gracious Arnold Palmer that provides a poignant connection between the infancy of professional golf in America and its elevation in stature to the "Arnie's Army" level by 1970. Only 99 to go. Advertisement Read more: Trump called Tiger Woods a 'true legend.' Now golfer is dating Vanessa Trump, president's ex-daughter-in-law The list includes 15 women, trailblazers and champions such as Mickey Wright, whose 82 Tour victories included 13 majors and whose swing was lauded as the best of anyone regardless of gender by no less than Ben Hogan. Pioneers of the sport, firmly planted in the wellspring of 19th-century Scotland, are given their due. While the Union and Confederate armies were preparing for war across the pond, Willie Park Jr. and Old Tom Morris exuded geniality and competence on the green, dominating the British Open from its inception in 1860 through more than a decade. Old Morris passed on his mashie niblick — an early term for a seven iron — to his equally talented son, Young Tom Morris, who won the British Open four times from 1868 to 1872. They are the only father-son combo among the 100. Advertisement Americans began to hold their own by the 1920s, and professional golf has increased in popularity as a spectator sport to this day. It's also an endeavor that nearly anyone can try and many become passionate about. One hundred is a somewhat arbitrary number to cap excellence, impact and irresistible storytelling. It's plenty for Arkush to mine, though, and relate the history of golf through the very best golfers. Read more: Classic Hollywood: The best golf movies As for the thorny task of comparing golfers across generations and even centuries, Arkush leans on the wisdom of Jones, whose words can be extrapolated fairly to include women as well as men: Advertisement "I think we must agree that all a man can do is beat the people who are around at the same time he is. He cannot win from those who came before any more than he can from those who may come afterward." Get the best, most interesting and strangest stories of the day from the L.A. sports scene and beyond from our newsletter The Sports Report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
29-03-2025
- Sport
- Los Angeles Times
‘The Golf 100' isn't so much a pecking order of greatest players. It's an index of lively profiles
From John McDermott's fragile psyche to the sustained excellence of Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods — or Woods and Nicklaus; no spoiler here on who's No. 1 — this countdown of the top golfers is less a list than an index of insightful, lively profiles rife with anecdotes centered on their most joyous and miserable moments. 'The Golf 100: A spirited ranking of the greatest players of all time' is the 16th title by author Michael Arkush, most of them from the sports realm including New York Times bestsellers 'The Last Season' with Phil Jackson and 'The Big Fight' with Sugar Ray Leonard. This one is all Arkush and displays his storytelling — some sweet, some savory, a few bitter — in bite-size pieces. He includes greats from the early 20th century. He includes greats from other countries. He includes women. Why? Because their stories are compelling, even if ranking them became messy. So, yes, there are 100 in all, spread over 366 pages. Lists of the greatest golfers aren't a novel conceit. GolfDay published one a year ago. Golf Digest has its own. Folks have concocted lists on Reddit. Bleacher Report took a swing. There is even the website Times sportswriter Houston Mitchell got more than 12,000 readers to respond in 2009 to a poll ranking golfers. The top five are among Arkush's top 10, although not remotely in the same order. Most rankings are based on point systems, assigning weighted numbers to categories such as total tournaments won, top-10 finishes, player of the year awards, career longevity and performance in the four majors — the U.S. Open, Masters, British Open and PGA Championship. Arkush prioritized the majors, writing in the forward that they 'feature the strongest fields and, more often than not, are staged on the most demanding courses. When history is on the line.' Still, Arkush allowed himself license after covering professional golf for 30 years (he was an entertainment reporter for The Times from 1988 to 1995). Once the numbers were tabulated, he shuffled the deck by employing subjective criteria such as a golfer's impact or contributions to the sport. 'I was similar to a juror who, despite a stern warning from the judge not to let evidence deemed inadmissible be a factor in the verdict, couldn't help its affecting his thinking in one way or another,' Arkush wrote. An example is his inclusion of Francis Ouimet, a name unfamiliar to all but the most serious golf history buffs. He won the 1913 U.S. Open at the tender age of 20 over Harry Vardon, a British golf titan credited with inventing the modern grip and swing. Bobby Jones, the epitome of class, came along next, and the pendulum soon swung to the U.S. side of the Atlantic. Like so many writers, Arkush was loath to let numbers get in the way of a good yarn, beginning with ranking McDermott at No. 100. The cheeky son of a mailman became the first American to win the U.S. Open in 1911 — at age 19 — one year after he finished second to Scottish immigrant Alex Smith, telling him as they exited the course, 'I'll get you next year, you big tramp.' McDermott's penchant for popping off soon got him in trouble, and that was followed by a steep fall. He embarrassed the more genteel of his countrymen by bragging about his Open victories in the presence of Vardon. Then he was saved by a lifeboat after being a victim of a shipwreck. Then he lost a fortune in the stock market. Then he was committed to a sanitarium in 1916 and was never the same. Arkush concludes the profile describing a chance meeting between an elderly McDermott and a gracious Arnold Palmer that provides a poignant connection between the infancy of professional golf in America and its elevation in stature to the 'Arnie's Army' level by 1970. Only 99 to go. The list includes 15 women, trailblazers and champions such as Mickey Wright, whose 82 Tour victories included 13 majors and whose swing was lauded as the best of anyone regardless of gender by no less than Ben Hogan. Pioneers of the sport, firmly planted in the wellspring of 19th-century Scotland, are given their due. While the Union and Confederate armies were preparing for war across the pond, Willie Park Jr. and Old Tom Morris exuded geniality and competence on the green, dominating the British Open from its inception in 1860 through more than a decade. Old Morris passed on his mashie niblick — an early term for a seven iron — to his equally talented son, Young Tom Morris, who won the British Open four times from 1868 to 1872. They are the only father-son combo among the 100. Americans began to hold their own by the 1920s, and professional golf has increased in popularity as a spectator sport to this day. It's also an endeavor that nearly anyone can try and many become passionate about. One hundred is a somewhat arbitrary number to cap excellence, impact and irresistible storytelling. It's plenty for Arkush to mine, though, and relate the history of golf through the very best golfers. As for the thorny task of comparing golfers across generations and even centuries, Arkush leans on the wisdom of Jones, whose words can be extrapolated fairly to include women as well as men: 'I think we must agree that all a man can do is beat the people who are around at the same time he is. He cannot win from those who came before any more than he can from those who may come afterward.'
