Frank Hannigan dissects the USGA's pathetic distance failures

[Glenn Spencer]

Bryan, from what I understand of ANGC, they could do some experiments there with rolled back balls and equipment, if they wanted.

They could invite any number of pro's to play the course several times or more in the off-season, with scaled-back equipment.  They might be able to try several types of rolled-back balls, clubheads and shafts.  

You guys with more experience can tell me if this next part is true, but I'm guessing they could set up the course more like Mac intended, in terms of rough, distance and perhaps even trees.  

Then see how the course plays.  

ANGC is ideal for this because of its short playing season, its big bankroll, and its prominent position in golf.  Tiger has said he wants to see skill brought back into the game.  If ANGC and Woods lined up together on this issue, maybe at last something would actually get done.  

I wonder if such a move would give an advantage to more of the older players?  The younger guys supposedly are more flogger types.  But the older ones grew up playing the shorter ball and older equipment,  and learning the skills they needed to succeed with that kind of setup.    

If the equipment had never been changed to the current state, it is my opinion that Tiger would be missing 2 or 3 cuts a year, but he would also have about double the majors that he presently has. Nobody has been hurt as much as he has by what has gone on.

[JESII]

How has equipment helped Tiger make cut that he other wise would not?

[Aaron Katz]

This entire discussion is absolutely hyperbolic, IMO.  We aren't playing "golf" anymore?  I wasn't aware of this.  I know that my handicap isn't any better now than it was in 1997 (when I was 18 years old).  I think I've probably gotten 5 - 8 yards longer on the irons, and maybe 15 on the driver since then, but that could be due to increased strength as well as equipment.  I think it would be hard to contend that the club and balls aren't better today than 10 years ago, but not so much that I'm no longer playing golf.  In fact, the current ball is more difficult to spin sideways, and is more difficult to hit high in the air with the long-irons.  To this extent, it actually takes MORE skill to work the ball left to right and up and down.  

I just don't think we get anywhere by pretending that the game today is appreciably different than it was 10 years ago (or even 50 years ago) for the majority of players.  All that's happened is that, for the average player, their misses are more playable.  It certainly hasn't led to pitch and putt.  

For about 1 percent of golfers -- pros and top amateurs -- I think that you're seeing shorter shots hit into greens and, on some courses, fairway hazards come into play less often.  But I don't think the sky is falling at all.  

I also think that it is wrong to ignore the other side of the equation here:  The USGA was tricking up golf courses long before the manufacturers started using space age materials in balls and clubs.  I think it is safe to assume that no one here wants to go back to gutta perchas, Haskells, or hickory shafts, or even persimmon for that matter.  In 1955, who would you call the scoundrel?  Spalding, or the USGA, who grew the rough at Olympic Club to 8 inches?  In the 1970s/1980s, who fired the first shot in the arms race?   TaylorMade, or Pete Dye?  I think it really is impossible to say for sure whether equipment advances were driven by golf courses being made more difficult, or whether courses were made more difficult by equipment advances.  What I do know is that the USGA had 490 yard uphill par 4s when the best ball out there was the Titleist Professional and the best club out there was the 275 CC Great Big Bertha.

[JESII]

Do todays 450 cc drivers perform better than that 275 cc driver when struck dead solid and straight by a Tour caliber player?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

You forgot to mention how much better they perform versus a 275 cc Driver when you hit the ball an inch off center or more.

It's been my limited experience that whiffs don't go very far.

Aaron Katz,

Try hitting a presimmon, shallow faced Power Bilt driver ..... hard.

Then, you'll appreciate the enormous difference brought about by hi-tech equipment.

[Garland Bayley]

Do todays 450 cc drivers perform better than that 275 cc driver when struck dead solid and straight by a Tour caliber player?

I believe the answer here depends on COR and head weight. If they are equal, the same result occurs.

[JESII]

Patrick,

I was asking that question to make the point that in a Tour players hands, these two generations of drivers make very little difference. The ball however enables Tour players to set up their drivers (and all clubs really) for maximum effort swings because there is no sidespin. Hence 45 inch shafts with high launch heads and the evolution of FLOGGING.

You and I are on different sides of this fence though Pat. I do not support a full scale roll-back of any kind. I would support a higher spinning golf ball for the sidespin effect. That would probably dictate a shorter golf ball, but I put the onus on each individual club for making wholesale changes to their golf course that effects such a small percentage of all golfers. I would prefer people sought out ways to modify their course to increase and enhance creativity and interest as opposed to length for the sake of protecting a score-dependent ego.

[JESII]

Do todays 450 cc drivers perform better than that 275 cc driver when struck dead solid and straight by a Tour caliber player?

I believe the answer here depends on COR and head weight. If they are equal, the same result occurs.

Garland,

Any idea how much different the COR would be for say the 275 GBB and the 450 (or whatever) Taylor Made? If so, any idea how many yards that may translate into for a 120 mph swinger?

[Garland Bayley]

Do todays 450 cc drivers perform better than that 275 cc driver when struck dead solid and straight by a Tour caliber player?

I believe the answer here depends on COR and head weight. If they are equal, the same result occurs.

Garland,

Any idea how much different the COR would be for say the 275 GBB and the 450 (or whatever) Taylor Made? If so, any idea how many yards that may translate into for a 120 mph swinger?

You are depending on my oft faulty memory here, but as I remember the persimmon had a COR of .78 and the old metal drivers had a COR of .79.

I believe the COR limit is now .83. So the Taylor Made is probably .83, the GBB perhaps .79 with perhaps about a 10 yard increase.

[Jim Nugent]

The next generation of high-tech drivers may already be here, further obsoleting courses, as the following article describes...

"Revolution may see the game go square

By Lewine Mair
Last Updated: 2:54am BST 25/10/2006

Paul Casey, Padraig Harrington and the rest were warming up for the Volvo Masters yesterday but there was a new arrival on the range which was attracting more attention than any of the stars. Not since persimmon gave way to metal can there have been anything to match the awed reception for Callaway's latest driver, with its square, as opposed to rounded, head.

Nick Dougherty started practising with the Fusion FT-i on Monday. As one who has boasted a series of pretty girlfriends, Dougherty was not exactly bowled over by its appearance. However, when he stood as if to hit a shot, he began to think less of how it looked than the confidence which was flowing through his veins. "It gave me the feeling, 'I can really smash this'," he said. Which he did, time after time after time.

The square design is the brainchild of Alan Hocknell, who was born in Barrow-in-Furness and studied mechanical engineering at Imperial College, London. Hocknell, 35, worked with Phil Mickelson on his two-driver tactics at the Masters and is even now helping the player with his preparations for Augusta next year. The new shape, as he has explained, allows the weight to be located outside the weighting zone of a usual driver – ie at each of the two corners at the back of the club. What this means is that the implement is more resistant to twisting, with the sweet-spot playing across the entire face to encourage straight hitting.
advertisement

When the Callaway men asked Dougherty to take aim, so to speak, on hitting a few wild shots, he had to apologise. "I found it very difficult to do," he laughed..."

Thomas Bjorn played 18 holes with the driver.  "According to Stevens, Bjorn proceeded to unleash one grand drive after another and did not miss a fairway all morning."

You can read the whole article at:  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/10/25/sgmair25.xml

[Glenn Spencer]

How has equipment helped Tiger make cut that he other wise would not?

JES,

Well, Tiger is the one person that could make one look stupid for making my comment, but if you go back and look at a lot of the scores from the late 80's and early 90's the great players were shooting 77 and missing cuts. This does not happen today. The way Tiger drives it, I think he would be vulnerable. The game was just harder back then and a lot more difficult to 'have' it week in and week out. I think a very interesting study would be the top 10 players missed cuts then and the top 10 from 2006, then look at the number 1's.

[Garland Bayley]

Great Jim,

Now all courses have to be remodeled to add length and to narrow the playing corridors! For that purpose I propose Douglas Fir trees for everyone.

[JESII]

Glenn,

The great players other than Tiger shoot mid-high 70's plenty and all iss a few cuts per year. Your comment could not be proved or disproved and I am not trying to do that. I think Tiger's cut streak is a testament to his mindset to play every shot as hard as he can. That would not have been different 20 years ago.

[Glenn Spencer]

NO DOUBT you are correct, but in all seriousness, with a gun to your head. Don't you think it was a little easier to get it going 'bad' 10 years ago? Tiger did shoot, 69-67-69-80 at the Honors Course in 96, the line was much more fine back then. I think so anyway, yes the pins are tougher and the courses are longer today, but that doesn't affect him. I also think it has a lot to do with expectations, the Pros expectations are higher, week in and week out these days. One more though, it seems that only the really, really great players would make all the cuts in the majors in one year, now it is somewhat commonplace for guys in the top 30-50 in the world.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Re the square headed drivers, Tom Wishon gives a different perspective in his October tech report at:

www.wishongolf.com/etechreport/2006/october/

Might they be just the next wave of hype and marketing whoopla.  What ever happened to the moveable weights, and the HiBore, and the Sasquatch and all the other wonders of technology?