[Sean_A]

One point that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, but which I have made before, is that the last 10 years of technology appear to have had the perverse effect of widening the gap between elite players and recreational golfers.  No less an authority than Jack Nicklaus agrees, as strongly as he can, with that reality.

I don't presume that a rollback would be easy, but I do think that it is important and essential.

Two arguments that I want to reject and refute in the strongest possible terms are the ideas that "course lengthening concerns only apply to the tiny fraction of courses that host elite, tour-type events," and that anybody who wants to play a retro game should just go ahead and do that on their own."

As to the latter argument, it is as thin as it is stupid.  What we are talking about here is a debate over the rules of a game, for the good of that game.  I could just as easily say, "If you are someone who wants to play bomb-and-gouge golf, just go get yourself a High-CoR driver and a couple dozen Bandit balls and flail away.  And don't worry about the rules."  It is not a question of individual choice or personal preference.  It is a debate over how the game's rules should be crafted for people who want to play by the rules.  I would no more use a ridiculously old retro retro driver or golf ball, disadvantaging myself under the rules, than I would use an illegal ball or 16 clubs in a match.
The old argument that goes, "If you want a ball rollback, just go get yourself some old Spalding Dots," is an argument that should be consigned to the dustbin forever.

The other former argument, that if the concern about technology is really a concern over what the technology is doing to golf courses, is a much better one that demands careful analysis, because it has some truth.  But I don't see how anyone gets around the basic notion that golf is great because we all play by one set of rules, and because we can play many of the same great championship courses that the elites play.  As a ball rollback proponent, my sole concern is with the golf courses, and not in denying championship victories to long-hitters or trying to help short hitters.  I think we should regard courses like The Old Course and ANGC as coal-mine canaries, that are telling us we need to go in a different direction in terms of elite play, because the last 10 years have created a distortion with the one good clear measuring device that we have, the classic championship courses.

The other arguments about how equipment manufacturers will be hurt, or the USGA will be sued, or how recreational players need the psychological crutch of the hope that equipment will give them more distance, are all pure bunk, at least on their merits.  (Yes the USGA might get sued, but it is a battle that they should win, and should welcome in order to assert their role as Legal Guardian of the game.)

By the way, let us also dispose forever of the argument that a "ball rollback" means a Luddite retreat to an older design.  Not for a minute would I suggest that we go back to balata.  I favor new specs that will continue to allow for OEM reserach and development, competiion and new ideas.  (A Toonamint Ball for Augusta is a nice idea as a political threat, but it is a non-starter as a general policy for golf administration.)  I'd like to see new ball specs that simply reverse the situation in which tour players have picked up 25, 30 or 40 yards with new equipment and recreational players have picked up 5 yards.  It might mean new regulations on spin, or ball size, or weight, or composition or materials.  I leave that to the technicians and the engineers.  But from the perspective of sound management of the game, I don't know how this argument can be resisted.

Chuck

You are arguing a different point than what I made.  Like AHughes suggested, if the game is suffering for you because of equipment you use, DO SOMETHING.  Whinging about on GCA is not likely to have much of an impact.  At least if you altered your equipment you make the game more enjoyable for yourself.  I don't see how this is any way stupid.  Individually we make the game what it is and there is no better place to commence change than your own bag. 

I have made it clear that I will follow any ruling the USGA makes because at the end of the day it isn't terribly important to me.  The ball goes 10% further or 10% less - I don't really care because I haven't gone in search of the back tees no matter how far I hit the ball.  Almost all the courses I play are fun and challenging and I rarely step back past 6500 yards - in fact the few times I do are nearly always in the States because others want to go back further.  Its some sort of manly thing I guess because nearly all of these guys shouldn't be playing a course longer than 6500 yards.  Its a waste of time and maintenance money. 

The odd thing about all this is that folks are now asking me to care about what happens to classic courses when the members of these courses made their own decisions and I haven't seen the vast majority of them.  Its hard to get jacked up about a course I don't know and am generally not welcome to visit.  Nobody consulted me when Oakland Hills decided to extend the course - again.  So I figure its none of business.  They are gonna do what they are gonna do and it doesn't impact me to any great degree. 

I understand that your take is more of philosophical one in terms of the protection of the game and courses.  The only thing is, so far as I am concerned, if folks really feel that the game is at risk, why are they waiting for a bunch of strangers in out east to sort it out?  You could probably have more impact at your home club by playing older equipment (if the game is no longer challenging for you) and convincing members not to make changes to kow tow to distance.  So far as protecting courses, no new ruling on distance from the USGA is a guarantee that courses will not be mucked up.  Again, this is down to members.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

If the ball started going (for me) 10-20% farther next year that would be great. The tees I usually play from (6200-odd yards at my home course) are a bit longish for my game, even moreso on away rounds. A bit of extra distance would get me a club closer and more comfortable on my approach shots on longish Par 4's.

If the ball started going 10-20% less far next year, that would be great. Then I could move up one set of tees (5700-odd yards at my home course) and the guys I play with would be willing to move up with me. As it is, nobody under about 70 years old wants to be seen playing from up there. Give 'em all one or two more clubs into the greens and the norm would eventually shift.

Or they can keep it the same as it is right now. I have a great time playing the game with today's ball. I move up sometimes during the winter and it's nice to be hitting 8-irons into some greens. I move back sometimes on road trips and it's nice to challenge myself with having to lay up and try to still play to my handicap. It's all good!

[Chuck Brown]

Sean, our games -- and outlooks -- are remarkably mostly for their similarity, not their differences.

I am not a bad player, but I say to you with all sincerity, the Pro V1 and other urethane balls have meant little or nothing to me.  And I am a way-above average golfer, in terms of mere recreational players.

And so, if what we are talking about is a "threat" to the existence of the Pro V1, that is really a non-issue for me.

You make a good point that nobody at OHCC asked you before they brought in Rees Jones to butcher the 15th hole and build some ridiculous new tees, basically every place that they had room for them.  Here's a point I hope you'll agree with.  Just about all of the changes at OHCC were made for the purpose of better golf; every change that was made, was made in an effort to defend against longer driver and overall distances.  (15's added bunker, where the tee could not be moved back.  A narrowed 2nd fairway and additional bunkering where that tee could not be moved back.  A new tee at 5, and an absurd new tee at 8, requiring a 200-yard walk from the 7th green.  A new tee at 14, just because there was some space to do it.  And a new tee adding length to 17, even though the green was not designed for a tee shot from the mid-200-yard range.)  Only the changes to Hole 7 (which had been changed earlier by Jones, Sr.) were actual improvements to the course.

To be very honest, Sean, I don't know why the OHCC members are so sanguine about it.  I'd be an even greater rollback advocate after seeing what was done to 15, if the changes were put to me for approval.

Again, Sean, I have never, ever, not once, advocated a ball rollback because the game is "too easy" for me.  I am an advocate only because I believe in two simultaneous principles:
1)  All of golf should be played by one set of rules, and;
2)  Distances, especially driver distances, of the elites, are making classic championship courses, and thereby a large part of golfing history, obsolete, through advances in technology.

So I say, scale the balls back, to better fit the existing courses, and continue to allow technology and innovation from the manufacturers under new equipment rules and regulations.  I am not anti-technology, and I am certainly not a Luddite.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Making the game easier and more accessible for an average player is always better for the overall health of the sport.
...

If only I could believe this is true (the easier and more accessible part).

As I have often written here, IMO modern golf clubs give most of their benefit to the very best of players. So they are not helping the average player in any significant way.

More "public" golf courses are being build by private entities out to make a profit relatively speaking than by public entities for the public good. Therefore, the cost is more as profits are pursued. This does not help accessibility.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Craig
Gee, what a bunch of Luddite loving golfers!  I suppose guys like Melvyn still ski on barrel staves, and only go to "mountains" with rope tows or old single chair lifts?

It's 2008 boys, get with the drill!  New is better. New is easier. New is built upon the old and will one day be old...

Sometimes I think we embrace the past just little too much....

You do not know me, what right have you got to make statements about my life. As for golf let’s be honest you don’t care, just this macho thing yet as you said ‘New is Easier’. - a real man who wants it easier. Why not just play golf on your computer, make it easier still. The easy way, that clearly is all you care about. If two people in your life had not embraced in the past, there would be no Craig, perhaps in your case that statement could be right. But then I don’t think so because the past is part of us.

Richard
I, for one, think that hi-tech has drastically altered the game...

...for better.

Making the game easier and more accessible for an average player is always better for the overall health of the sport.

I don't care if pro's can it 400 yard drives, if they are so concerned they can use a modified ball. For the rest of us, technology has made the game of golf better. Change is not necessarily a bad thing.


Again that word ‘Easier’.  We should use technology, I agree but not let it control us. Perhaps one day you may understand and feel that something’s are worth caring about.

If my memory serves me correctly JFK great speech about putting an American on the moon went something like this ‘We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard’. Someone else who thought certain things in life worth fighting for – Craig, I wonder if you think JFK would ‘ski on barrel staves, and only go to "mountains" with rope tows or old single chair lifts’?

[Mark Smolens]

They may be beautiful, but I have broken 3 of them, whereas, I haven't broken a single metal driver.

[/quote]

That's interesting, I cracked the face on 3 different Ping drivers.  They took them back and gave me new ones, but broken heads are hardly the purview of persimmon alone. . .

[Richard Choi]

If only I could believe this is true (the easier and more accessible part).

As I have often written here, IMO modern golf clubs give most of their benefit to the very best of players. So they are not helping the average player in any significant way.

More "public" golf courses are being build by private entities out to make a profit relatively speaking than by public entities for the public good. Therefore, the cost is more as profits are pursued. This does not help accessibility.

If you don't believe that modern equipment does not make the game easier, then this whole thread is moot point.

If you believe that modern equipment does help average players but help very best player even more, then who cares? You are talking about several hundred players out of millions of golfer all over the world. Why are you worrying about something that effects 0.00001% of the overall golfing population?

And you lost me on the public course comment. What does that have to do with hi-tech equipment?

[Ken Moum]

If only I could believe this is true (the easier and more accessible part).

As I have often written here, IMO modern golf clubs give most of their benefit to the very best of players. So they are not helping the average player in any significant way.

More "public" golf courses are being build by private entities out to make a profit relatively speaking than by public entities for the public good. Therefore, the cost is more as profits are pursued. This does not help accessibility.

If you don't believe that modern equipment does not make the game easier, then this whole thread is moot point.

If you believe that modern equipment does help average players but help very best player even more, then who cares? You are talking about several hundred players out of millions of golfer all over the world. Why are you worrying about something that effects 0.00001% of the overall golfing population?

And you lost me on the public course comment. What does that have to do with hi-tech equipment?

Having played a fair amount of golf with everything from hickories to modern 460cc drivers and "game improvement" irons. I don't believe that modern clubs make the average golfer score any better on average. The exception would be the availability of lighter, more flexible shafts than anything steel offered.

He or she might get some gain from the big heads and perimeter-weighted irons, but the truth is average golfers don't hit their bad shots slightly off center. They hit them with over-the-swings, open or shut faces, fat, thin, on the shank, etc., etc.

Modern clubs make virtually no difference on those misses. Unless they somehow allow the ball to a go farther into trouble or off the golf course.

As a 11-13 handcapper, I shot my low round of the year a couple of summers back with persimmon woods and a set of Macgregor TP63 blades (mid-70s, IIRC).

I currently play with a bunch of "average" guys with handicaps between 10 and 25, mostly above 15. None of them would see much change in their scores if they gave up their new technology.

They lose shots by the handful from inside 100 yards.

OTOH, the better players, with handicaps under 8 or so, get a lot of help because they are much more likely to make a good swing but miss the sweet spot by a a 1/2 inch. Those shots end up on the green or in the fairway with modern clubs, saving strokes for the better players.

Ken

[Garland Bayley]

If only I could believe this is true (the easier and more accessible part).

As I have often written here, IMO modern golf clubs give most of their benefit to the very best of players. So they are not helping the average player in any significant way.

More "public" golf courses are being build by private entities out to make a profit relatively speaking than by public entities for the public good. Therefore, the cost is more as profits are pursued. This does not help accessibility.

If you don't believe that modern equipment does not make the game easier, then this whole thread is moot point.

If you believe that modern equipment does help average players but help very best player even more, then who cares? You are talking about several hundred players out of millions of golfer all over the world. Why are you worrying about something that effects 0.00001% of the overall golfing population?

And you lost me on the public course comment. What does that have to do with hi-tech equipment?

You mentioned accessible. Equipment has nothing to do with accessibility. Golf cost does. Therefore, the comment on public courses.

The thread is not a moot point, because Byron and Gene would have benefited from modern equipment. The best players get the benefit, as I said above. In particular, they would have benefited primarily from the ball that spins less off the driver (although it would give Byron less chance to back the ball up with an 8 iron). They also would have benefitted from titanium heads and graphite shafts that make the driver ligher, thereby allowing them to swing it faster. They would have received a small benefit from the increased COR of modern driver clubfaces over the COR of wood.

The average player with a handicap in the area of 20, would most likely gain nothing. He would have been using a low spin ball in the first place. The lighter driver is harder for him to control. The COR change is insignificant for his swing speed.

[Richard Choi]

When I am talking about accessibility, I am talking about more people being able to pickup the game because it is easier to play. Not about whether or not green fees are cheaper as that really has little to do with hi-tech equipment.

If you do not believe that today's drivers and irons with huge hitting area and high MOI do nothing for average players, then honestly, I am not sure this discussion can go much further since physics don't mean much to you.

Today's drivers are MUCH lighter (faster swing speed), have bigger sweetspot (little loss of distance on off-center shots), and have massive MOI (much tighter dispersion).

And the fact is the driver technology has been a greater boon to average golf players than the pros as they prefer heavier clubs, they don't need a big sweetspot since their hits are so much more consistent. Heck, most of the pros are using blade-type irons which are pretty much identical to the clubs from decades ago.

But I do I agree that the ball technology has not provided as much advantage to the average players as club technology. But then again, most average players are not spending $50/dozen on ProV1's either - I find a lot more TopFlites in the woods than ProV1's.

I would repeat my argument that technology has made the golf more accessible and enjoyable for average people. Who cares what effect it has had on 0.00001% of the golfing public?

[Garland Bayley]

Richard,

I do believe in physics. I don't believe in the quality of the average golfer's swing. I believe even less in the quality of the beginner's swing. That is why your reference to accessible made no sense to me with respect to equipment for beginners. See Ken's post above. He shot his best score with the old equipment. Measuring the effectiveness of the hi-tech equipment for a beginner is an exercise in statistics, not an exercise in physics. Have you seen any statistical studies by the equipment companies? I thought not.

[Richard Choi]

Because one guy had a good round you are going to dismiss that hi-tech drivers have no value?

I totally agree that measuring the effectiveness of the hi-tech equipment for a beginner is an exercise in statistics.

And the statistics say that the average size of a driver has quadrupled since the days of the persimmons. With that, the size of the sweetspot has increased accordingly. So, before you had to hit a sweetspot the size of a dime to get a decent result out of a driver. Now, that sweetspot is slightly larger than an elongated quarter.

You are telling me statistically you are not going to see the improvement on the quality of the shots hit by a beginner when the sweetspot is 2 to 4 times larger? I don't need a statistical study by an equipment company, that would be mathmatically impossible.

But that change wouldn't much to a pro since 99% of his hit are within the size of a dime to begin with. Most of the benefits will be gained by the beginners who hit the ball all of the face.

I don't understand how anyone can argue against that? I am sorry, but "the guy shot his career round without it" ain't cuttin' it.

[Ken Moum]

Because one guy had a good round you are going to dismiss that hi-tech drivers have no value?

I totally agree that measuring the effectiveness of the hi-tech equipment for a beginner is an exercise in statistics.

And the statistics say that the average size of a driver has quadrupled since the days of the persimmons. With that, the size of the sweetspot has increased accordingly

I think he's referring to the only statistic that makes any difference--the score.

There's been no measurable decline in scoring by average players (the bogey golfer) since the introduction of high-tech equipment. In fact, given that courses have lately narrowed their fairways in an effort to prevent the best players from scoring too well, I would argue that most amateurs are struggling to keep up.

My point about the best round of the year was that I switched to persimmon and blades from a 460cc driver and cavity-backed irons and broke 80 for the first time.

I have played a few round every summer with such equipment, including hickories for at least five years, and the scores I shoot with the old equipment is rarely outside my normal range of deviation.

In fact, at least a couple of nines with vintage equipment get into the top 10 percent of my scores.

The game withthose clubs is "different" but it is not appreciably more difficult. And I am a short, crooked driver with a mediocre iron game. If anyone is going to be hurt by blades and persimmon, it ought to be me.

But my good shots are just as good with the old equipment, and my bad shots are often not as bad, because they don't go as far into the trouble as they do with modern clubs.

On the other hand, I know a number of low handicappers who claim to gain a couple of shots a round with cavity backs over blades. But they don't hit many chunks, shanks, pulls or slices. So increasing the sweet spot from dime-size to quarter-size helps them a LOT.

Ken

[Sean_A]

Sean, our games -- and outlooks -- are remarkably mostly for their similarity, not their differences.

I am not a bad player, but I say to you with all sincerity, the Pro V1 and other urethane balls have meant little or nothing to me.  And I am a way-above average golfer, in terms of mere recreational players.

And so, if what we are talking about is a "threat" to the existence of the Pro V1, that is really a non-issue for me.

You make a good point that nobody at OHCC asked you before they brought in Rees Jones to butcher the 15th hole and build some ridiculous new tees, basically every place that they had room for them.  Here's a point I hope you'll agree with.  Just about all of the changes at OHCC were made for the purpose of better golf; every change that was made, was made in an effort to defend against longer driver and overall distances.  (15's added bunker, where the tee could not be moved back.  A narrowed 2nd fairway and additional bunkering where that tee could not be moved back.  A new tee at 5, and an absurd new tee at 8, requiring a 200-yard walk from the 7th green.  A new tee at 14, just because there was some space to do it.  And a new tee adding length to 17, even though the green was not designed for a tee shot from the mid-200-yard range.)  Only the changes to Hole 7 (which had been changed earlier by Jones, Sr.) were actual improvements to the course.

To be very honest, Sean, I don't know why the OHCC members are so sanguine about it.  I'd be an even greater rollback advocate after seeing what was done to 15, if the changes were put to me for approval.

Again, Sean, I have never, ever, not once, advocated a ball rollback because the game is "too easy" for me.  I am an advocate only because I believe in two simultaneous principles:
1)  All of golf should be played by one set of rules, and;
2)  Distances, especially driver distances, of the elites, are making classic championship courses, and thereby a large part of golfing history, obsolete, through advances in technology.

So I say, scale the balls back, to better fit the existing courses, and continue to allow technology and innovation from the manufacturers under new equipment rules and regulations.  I am not anti-technology, and I am certainly not a Luddite.

Chuck

I do believe we look at this problem from different angles.  You are hoping for a top down solution.  I say in the absence of of a top down solution, why do people keep looking for leadership when they can control their games and at least to some extent (depending on how persuasive you are) their clubs.  Sure, it may be a lot easier if the USGA did the work, but they haven't and if they do, will it be enough?  It is my firm belief that members can only blame themselves for what happens to their course.  I can't abide by any of this shifting of the blame nonsense to the USGA, PGA, tv or a brother in law. 

I do have some sympathy where the preservation of history is concerned, but I also realize that things have changed so much already and to be fair, much of it has nothing to do with equipment or players.  Maintenance expectations have radically altered the game and I don't see that ever regressing (this is a bad word to describe it because it would actually be progress to reduce maintenance impact and expectations). 

So far as the pros are concerned, I always look at it form the point of view as a product.  If folks stop watching, the pros will have to figure out what will make their product more marketable.  I never, ever look at the pro game as an indication of how healthy the game is or as an indicator of what Golfer Joe should be doing.  Bottom line, I don't care what pros do - its none of my business.  They don't interfer with my business and I won't intefer with theirs.  Again, this goes back to my belief that the power of change rests with the individual golfer and clubs.  I can only hope that eventually, folks will catch on and tell the pros to stick it if they don't like what they see. 

Ciao 

[Garland Bayley]

Richard,

Humans are amazing animals. They adapt pretty well. If you give a guy a persimmon driver, he sees the problem at hand and behaves accordingly. If you give him a 460 cc driver, he behaves appropriately for it. In the mean time, none of these technological advances lowers the average handicap. That is a pretty big statistical sample.

So what if an average golfer gets the big driver and hits it on average 20 yards farther than he does the persimmon with no increase in dispersion. That is a pretty big if. If it happened, it would only make a marginal difference in his score if any. They call the wedges and the putter the scoring clubs for a reason.

You want to make golf "accessible" for the beginner. Tell him to spend ninety percent of his practice time on and around the practice green. That will go over real well with him.

[Ken Moum]

Richard,

Humans are amazing animals. They adapt pretty well. If you give a guy a persimmon driver, he sees the problem at hand and behaves accordingly. If you give him a 460 cc driver, he behaves appropriately for it. In the mean time, none of these technological advances lowers the average handicap. That is a pretty big statistical sample.

So what if an average golfer gets the big driver and hits it on average 20 yards farther than he does the persimmon with no increase in dispersion. That is a pretty big if. If it happened, it would only make a marginal difference in his score if any. They call the wedges and the putter the scoring clubs for a reason.

You want to make golf "accessible" for the beginner. Tell him to spend ninety percent of his practice time on and around the practice green. That will go over real well with him.

That's an excellent analysis.

However, I have a theory re. accessibility to beginners. I think the proliferation of "game improvement" clubs are part of the disillusionment of beginners and part-time players.

They have been lead to believe that if they buy the latest, greatest driver and irons, the game will become easier.

Well, it's not easy, and golf clubs aren't going to make it easy.

When I started my home club had a bunch of old guys shooting the high 80s and low 90s, with steel shafts, blade irons and persimmon (or laminated) woods.

The difference is, nobody thought the game was supposed to be easy, and they didn't feel obligated to buy new golf clubs every season, or more often.

Ken

[Garland Bayley]

...
However, I have a theory re. accessibility to beginners. I think the proliferation of "game improvement" clubs are part of the disillusionment of beginners and part-time players.

They have been lead to believe that if they buy the latest, greatest driver and irons, the game will become easier.

Well, it's not easy, and golf clubs aren't going to make it easy.
...
Ken

Ken,

I would accuse you of plagarism of my ideas, but i have found accusations of plagarism, no matter how accurate, don't get me very far. Instead, I simply say, EXACTAMUNDO.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I, for one, think that hi-tech has drastically altered the game...

...for better.

Making the game easier and more accessible for an average player is always better for the overall health of the sport.

Absolutely NOT.

Dumbing down the game and making it easier, diminishes the challenge, which is the inherent lure and virtue of the game.[/color]

I don't care if pro's can it 400 yard drives, if they are so concerned they can use a modified ball. For the rest of us, technology has made the game of golf better. Change is not necessarily a bad thing.

It is when you have to lengthen every hole and you run out of real estate.[/color]

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Strange as it may seem, there are golf courses out there that are not being lengthened to combat technology.They are still busy with recreational golfers. These courses do not host tour events and high level amateur events.

Golfers keep buying new stuff.

www.sacbee.com/100/story/885679.html

Average handicaps remain the same.

The tour level and high level amateur competitions are adversely affected by ball and equipment technology, turf technology,   fitness regimens for golfers, advanced golf instruction, sports psychologists, etc. 

The question remains: Why no action from the USGA and R&A to establish different rules for the 2% of high level golfers if ball and equioment technology, by itself, is adversely affecting "the game?"

[John Burzynski]

Because many now use carts the distance does not register, but if they had to walk 7,000 yards then I believe course of those sizes would start to loose customers, being played by those who ‘need the length’.

 

I think that is one of the wisest lines written on this posting...for the healthy golfer, if we had to walk on every course, you would see a lot more golfers patronizing that 'old' 6200 yard muni around the corner.

I know that I certainly hit the ball farther and more accurately today (I am almost 40) than I did when I was 20...and I have less of an opportunity to practice and play today than I did in those carefree days. Maybe some of that additional 'talent' is due to experience, but most of it I will guess is due to cavity back irons and a larger more forgiving driver, along with better ball technology.  And I suspect that I enjoy the game more now that it is a bit 'easier'.    I suffer no delusions that my normal score in the high 80's or low 90's will ever suddenly become a 78 or 74 simply due to equipment changes.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Re: Pat's original post, let's keep in mind that Byron Nelson was 49 when the match aired (he turned 50 soon after) and Gene Littler was known for his rhythm and accuracy, with very little lower body action in the swing.

Gene Littler was on the PGA TOUR.
Nelson at 49 was a hell of a golfer.

Most 49 year old PGA Tour Pros are licking their chops at the prospect of turning 50 and jumping to the Senior PGA Tour.

Littler and Nelson were sensational players in 1961.

You and others continue to make the same mistake, and that is, contexting everything at the PGA Tour level.[/color]

So the fact that these player are short by modern standards shouldn't be a surprise. 

It is a surprise.
Not because they're short in comparison to today's PGA Tour Pros, but, because they're short in comparison to 14 year old boys and girls who play competitive golf.[/color]

At that time they were short by early 60's standards as well.

Gene Littler was a short hitter at the age of 31 ?

You must be kidding.

What do you base your statement on ?

Neither one of them was "short" in 1961[/color]

[Garland Bayley]

...
The question remains: Why no action from the USGA and R&A to establish different rules for the 2% of high level golfers if ball and equioment technology, by itself, is adversely affecting "the game?"

Why are different rules needed for that 2% when the problem could be solved by one set of rules?

The USGA let TopFlite Strata get away with virually applying vaseline to the driver face. All they had to do is say it is not legal to manipulate ball spin that way, and most of the problem would be solved, because the stats show the ball changes creating by far the biggest discontinuity in how far the ball travels. Furthermore, the USGA could have limited COR to the COR of wood. Instead, they put a limit significantly higher. It would appear that did that out of fear.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

Today I played with a 56 year old, who had a sextuple by-pass about a year and a half ago, and he hit several 300 yard drives.

With a lost ball he shot even par.

Clearly, large club faces allow golfers to swing with wild abandon, producing relatively straight drives.  This, when combined with a hot ball, renders through the green architecture meaningless.

The USGA and the R&A let the horse out of the barn, Genie out of the bottle, etc., etc..

What I don't understand is the following.

Why don't they admit it ?

Then, why don't they do something about it ?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Gene Littler was on the PGA TOUR.

Yes, a relatively short hitting PGA Tour member, and also a relatively short hitting US Open champion.

Nelson at 49 was a hell of a golfer.

Yes he was, but what does that have to do with anything related to his length??

Most 49 year old PGA Tour Pros are licking their chops at the prospect of turning 50 and jumping to the Senior PGA Tour.

Yes, that is the case today, because golfers keep themselves in better shape, allowing them to play at a higher level, longer.

Littler and Nelson were sensational players in 1961.

Corey Pavin was a sensational player in 1995.  Was he a long hitter?  Fred Funk was a sensational player in the mid 2000's...is/was he a long hitter?  What does being a "sensational" player have anything to do with how far they hit the golf ball?

You and others continue to make the same mistake, and that is, contexting everything at the PGA Tour level.

I don't understand you...above you point out that Littler was a PGA Tour pro, and now you say that fact is irrelevant?  Can you decide which way you want to have it?

It is a surprise.
Not because they're short in comparison to today's PGA Tour Pros, but, because they're short in comparison to 14 year old boys and girls who play competitive golf.

Please provide examples of these 14 year old girls who hit the ball farther than PGA Tour players of any era.  You didn't actually believe all that hyperbole about Michelle Wie's length, which vaporized under any sort of real analysis or measurement? 

Gene Littler was a short hitter at the age of 31 ?

You must be kidding.

What do you base your statement on ?

You believe Gene Littler, famous for his slow tempo (the slow tempo needed to regulate his swing which was all upper-body), was a long hitter?  Long compared to whom?  He wasn't even long compared to 49-year old (soon to be 50 yr old) Byron Nelson and I'm supposed to believe he was a long hitter relative to his peers at the time on the PGA Tour?  How possibly could that be the case?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Clearly, large club faces allow golfers to swing with wild abandon, producing relatively straight drives.  This, when combined with a hot ball, renders through the green architecture meaningless.
...

Correction, the best players, who can drive relatively well in the first place can swing with wild abandon.

The rest of use (perhaps 15 handicap and above), even with a nonabandon swing cannot produce relatively straight drives with big drivers. The only time we hit fairways with any regularity are when we play exceedingly wide tracks like Chambers Bay and Rustic Canyon. But, we aren't swinging away with wild abandon when we accomplish that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()