Technology: Improving price vs performance

[Doug Siebert]

I've touched on this a few times in a few posts but it hasn't attracted much discussion, so I decided to bring it out into a separate topic in the hopes it would spur some further discussion.  I'm not looking to get into a "new ball and club technology is good/bad/neutral to the game" discussion, we've had enough of those including a couple running right now.

What I want to highlight is a really rough timeline with various technological improvement in golf and whether they helped the game in terms of making it perform better (longer, straighter, etc.) or less expensive to participate, whether reducing cost or making equipment more consistent which reduces the gap between what rich and less rich players can obtain.

Please help with this timeline by adding stuff you think is missing or correcting stuff I'm getting wrong (the dates are just estimates, if I'm off by a few years either ignore it or correct it at your option, but it shouldn't matter to the point)

1850 - gutta percha replaces feathery - lower price, better consistency, LESS distance(?)
1900 - rubber core ball - lower price, better consistency, more distance
1930 - steel shafts replace hickory - lower price, better consistency
1970 - surlyn cover balls - lower price (i.e., lasted longer)
1970 - cast iron heads - lower price
1980 - metal headed drivers - better consistency, longer life, better performance on mishits
1985(?) - graphite shafts - better performance (more distance)
2000 - big headed Ti drivers - HIGHER price, shorter life, better performance
2000 - new generation golf ball - better consistency (no rubber windings) better performance


Note that most of the changes up until the past few decades were to make the game cheaper to play through equipment that cost less initially and/or lasted longer and/or had better consistency from the cheapest to the most expensive variations.  A lot of it was due to automation taking human labor (and human error) out of the equation.

But now the changes are almost totally price insensitive, they are all about better performing equipment.  Perhaps that's a natural outcome of an economy that gives people more disposable income and more leisure time, but it seems to me that for those who claim "growth of the game" as a goal, that making the game less expensive is going to help more than making us hit better, further and straighter.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Nice thread, is it a case of history repeating itself?

Also not that each new generation of equipment also brought secondary consequences that in effect cancelled out the savings they offered.  E.G. the solid ball replacing the feathery meant people started to carry more iron headed clubs as they could now hit down on the ball in obstacles because the ball didn't split.

Also courses have been lengthening as a direct responsibility of technological advances for at least a century.

In the past these advances have been linked to an increase in popularity in the game.  Not happening at the moment.

It would also be interesting to develop a parallel timeline indication of when technological advances kicked in to ‘improve’ course maintenance.

When did lob wedges with a loft greater than say 54 degrees really become a factor?

[Doug Siebert]

Ah yes, forgot about the SW and LW.  Didn't Sarazen invent the SW in the late 30s.  That's definitely a tool to make the game easier.  IIRC Tom Kite started carrying 3 wedges around 1980, I think his 3rd was something like 58*.  But personally I'd classify that as a reaction to the greenside deep rough that irrigation had created (easier to keep it mowed to 3" than 3/4" when its getting watered every night, I guess) plus the advent of containment mounding.

[James Bennett]

Doug

I recall the Tom Watson Tour grind wedge sets put out by RAM in about 1980.  I think there were three in the set.  

I recall thinking 'what would you do with three wedges, and which long-iron would I discard, the 1-iron or the 2-iron, if I did take 3 wedges'.  Those two long irons disappeared from my set 6 years ago, replaced by three wedges and a third wood or hybrid.

James B

[Doug Siebert]

I added an LW in the mid 80s, dropping my 2 iron at first (keeping the 1 iron) and later bringing back the 2 iron and dropping my 3W, which is a set configuration I still use today.  Most people I play with think I'm really odd to not carry any fairway woods and more and more say they've never even seen a 1 iron I play it.  Sometime soon I'll probably get around to replacing my circa 1989 irons and probably won't have a 1 iron anymore.  I'll have to check out some fairway woods and see if the past 15 years of technology advances have created a fairway wood I can hit well

[Phil_the_Author]

Doug,

By "cast heads" are you referring to all types or specifically to cavity back heads. Didin't these come in around th early 70's and didn't they have a significant impact on accuracy, especially for the average player?

[Doug Sobieski]

The title of this thread is straight out of my industry - Technology Leasing. We often look at the price vs. performance of servers (particularly IBM iSeries/AS400).

Just like a business leasing a server, phone system, PC's, etc., what if you could lease a driver for 12-24 months with a Fair Market Value structure? At the end of term, you could turn it back in or buy it. Would that appeal to anyone?

A couple years ago some guys started a company that leased golf clubs. I wonder if they are still in business?

[JohnV]

Doug Sobieski,

Edwin Watts appears to lease equipment as well as Top Swing Leasing

Do you think they will ever lease golf balls?

[Doug Siebert]

Philip,

I was referring to cast heads just as a technology.  The investment cast process brought cavity back irons to the market, but it isn't a requirement for them as the various forged cavity back clubs today prove.

That might prove a good crossover point though -- it was the last technology that made things cheaper (well, metal woods did from the standpoint that the clubs lasted longer and required less care, but even cheap wooden woods lasted "long enough")  But in addition to making irons less expensive it also allowed for better results without improved skill on the part of the golfer, and started us on the downhill slide where new equipment was design with the intent of reducing skill requirements for the golfers than wielded them to obtain a given result, rather than reducing the cost as was previously the intent.


Shivas,

Personally I've always found that its the width of the sole that makes me more likely to skull a shot.  I've got a pretty high bounce SW and I feel pretty comfortable hitting that off hardpan.  Heck, I'll play it off a cartpath now and then.  But my LW, despite having less bounce, has about a 1" wide sole which makes it a bit dicey off hardpan unless I'm swinging well.  I pretty much gave up hitting full shots with it on my home course when they redid the fairways with A4 bent, because a full bore swing that might go 80-85 yards with that club goes about 130 if I hit the equator.  Much safer to hit a half shot with a SW