He Broke 100

By way of background, I am a recovering golf addict who has a ridiculous library of golf books, largely about the history of the game. I had looked forward to reading this book after reading a review in the Wall Street Journal.

It was disappointing at several levels. First, the author claims to use a methodology that focuses upon winning major championships with an elaborate point system. No disagreement there. The problem is he does not follow the system, and instead grants himself considerable latitude (much like a golfer who decides which strokes to count) that leads to some unfathomable results, especially after the top 20 or so.

As just one of many examples, how do you put Bernhard Langer, who won two majors, has over 40 wins on the European Tour (second all time) and a record 47 wins on the Senior Tour, and who has been a tremendous ambassador and role model for the game at 94 and "Lighthorse" Harry Cooper, who had no majors, at 71? The answer, for Langer, is that the author does not count European Tour wins (except as subjective "bonus" points) and completely ignores the Senior Tour (apparently even for bonus points). Including Cooper at all is a complete mystery given the author's supposedly win driven system. The author also disrespects, in my view, Larry Nelson, who won three majors.

I will not include other examples to avoid spoilers, but also note that a number of golfers who won one major are ranked above Langer and others (Nelson) who won more. Although the cutoff for counting majors was 2024, a number of current golfers with two majors are not included at all, which is kind of inexplicable if one adheres to the author's system.

As it is, the author's system is undone by his sometimes perplexing subjective views which largely override the supposedly data-driven approach. He seems to have a bias in favor of golfers from the 1930s, and one-time major winners from the 1970-2000 era, and against some of the best modern golfers.

I think the author also makes a mistake by including women golfers in this list. That is not because a book about the greatest women golfers lacks merit, but because comparing the women's game to to the men's is incredibly difficult. For one thing, the majors in women's golf keep changing. That said, the author's profiles of the women included are among the better ones. Perhaps a better approach would have been a separate book or section on women golfers. As it is, my feeling is that the women's golfers included get a bit of a short shrift, and some incredible recent women golfers are not included at all.

The writing is OK, although in parts it reads like a sports column with silly asides, etc. The author did himself no favors by narrating his own book. He may have broke 100 on the book but he shot about 130 on the narration. There are lots of mispronunciations, including multiple manglings of "Guldahl," "Boros" and other names. He also has the oddest of cadences, which might be described as sing-songy punctuated with puzzling points of emphasis.

If I had the ability, I would have taken a mulligan on this one.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!