News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« on: August 28, 2009, 11:01:05 PM »
I played a practice round yesterday for the Met Sr. Open with a couple of real nice pros. Without prompting, they started a discussion about the length of today's players, and they both agreed that it is the BALL, not the clubs, that is making it go so far.

They both remembered the old balata ball, and how well you could shape shots. Of course i chimed in with how the great old courses were being made obsolete, money was being wasted to protect the courses, and we all agreed that a change in the ball would be great for the game.

They mentioned how Nicklaus got the Ohio state golf association to use a softer ball in events, all players get the ball before they tee off.

With all the writing talent on this website, plus all the archies, I wonder what the reaction would be to a well-crafted petition with thousands of signatures sent to the USGA, R & A, PGA and Augusta to change the ball, or at least try it.

Yes, I am a dreamer, but somehow I sense the time might be right to try something like this. Am I nuts?

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2009, 12:15:15 AM »
Hi Bill

I'm convinced that it is "not the ball," and strongly believe "it is the implements."  I'm not sure if I am going over old ground here...but when wood woods were replaced by the oxymoron metal woods in the mid 1980's the game of golf was changed, perhaps forever; and I believe NOT for the good of the game.

This shift from wood to metal would not have hurt, if only the governing bodies had the leadership to say that professionals would not be allowed to play the new metal headed hollow woods.  Thankfully, the governing bodies of professional baseball never allowed aluminum baseball bats in the Major League or the minors.

There is a great article by Curt Sampson on this which may be all the proof anyone needs.  I sent it to Phil Young and maybe he can post it for me as I don't know how to post a jpeg document.

If I was king I would ban those hollow headed metal woods for all professional play, but I would allow amateurs and college players to continue to slap em around with the metal heads.  Does anyone remember when when Greg Nettles got caught with a cork filled baseball bat?

Best regards

- Rick

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2009, 12:21:08 AM »
Absolutely correct - I did a side by side persimmon versus titanium wood test - both with graphite shafts - it is not even close - the Ti Drive sends the ball 20 to 30 yards than the persimmon on average.

Persimmon was not short because of the steel shafts, it is simply shorter than Ti, especially with the 460cc heads versus the 250cc max head you can get in a persimmon (maybe 300cc)

Give these guys persimmon and you change the game.

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2009, 01:22:23 AM »
Well, it changed twice. It changed when metalwoods came out, but it also changed when the Pro V1 and its copycats came out. Augusta was 6,905 yards 10 years after most guys started using metalwoods. The major lengthening (2002) happened after the first Masters where guys had the Pro V1 (2001). The ball itself came out in late 2000.

Of course, drivers weren't at 460CC yet in 2001, but they were close.

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2009, 01:48:43 AM »
I don't remember the first 5-10 years of metal woods being much if any longer than the woods. I too believe the ball is a contributing factor. The light weight heads allowing light weight shafts allowing more length is IMO a major problem.
Personally I would like to see clubs limited to 43" in length and a 10 percent reduction in the ball.
I am still livid that they allowed any amount of spring in the faces of clubs.
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2009, 04:16:29 AM »
I don't remember the first 5-10 years of metal woods being much if any longer than the woods. I too believe the ball is a contributing factor. The light weight heads allowing light weight shafts allowing more length is IMO a major problem.
Personally I would like to see clubs limited to 43" in length and a 10 percent reduction in the ball.
I am still livid that they allowed any amount of spring in the faces of clubs.


Quality graphite and forgiving oversized heads allowing longer shaft and greater arc
rebound effect due to thin faces
balls designed to minimize spin off drivers, yet spin off irons

it's everything, but those who say it's metal woods more than the balls aren't explaining why my 20 year old irons go 10-15 yards farther than they did 20 years ago unless age and complete lack of exercise are positive contributing factors ;D
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2009, 09:04:28 AM »
I want to know exactly which courses are too easy for the posters on GCA.  Or for that matter, any of our club's members. 

When the world finally figures out that the guys on TV are just DAMN GOOD, we can finally just let them shoot -20 each week and be done with it.  It's the egos of millions of golfers getting in the way, not a poor little golf ball or titanium driver.

I've yet to encounter a golf course where I walk off 18 and think, "man, I just made that course feel obsolete".  Just doesn't happen....and my hdcp is anywhere from a 1-4 during the year.  Who gives a sh!t if they fly bunkers that we can't....TV golf is an exhibition.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2009, 09:26:02 AM »
Clint,

Televised pro golf may be an exhibition in America and perhaps you don't care how the best courses in America play for the upper levels of talented players - but in Australia we play a lot of pro golf on our best courses - Kingston Heath,Royal Melbourne, La Perouse,Victoria and many others - and people who watch golf here are interested in seeing the best players answer some of the questions MacKenzie and others asked of fine players.
Those questions are no longer asked at many great holes - and watching is less intersting because of it.
I suppose it depends if you are interested in watching great golf on great courses.
Of course for the average players golf is hard because they invariably have poor techniques - and even easy courses are hard if you can't hit.
In reality they should be making a ball that goes further for the average player.

And there are a multitude of fantastic old golf coures in Britain that are very short for good players (anyone who drives over 230 yards) and that would be even more fiun if the ball did not go as far. Swinley Forest and Sunningdale for a start.

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2009, 09:43:30 AM »
Hi Ralph

We missed you in Sweden...

...at our convivial dinner in Folsterbo GK I picked up my copy of Randy Jensen's book, "Playing Hickory Golf" (#282 of 300) and went thru it that night cover to cover

...In Randy's book, I  seem to recall that he wrote, that the golf ball in play in the golden age (1920's thru mid 1930's) went just as far as today's modern golf ball.  I can't recall if that was because it was smaller than today's ball.

What are your thoughts?

- Rick

p.s. how do you post a jpeg?  I'd like to post Curt Sampson's fine article on technology.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2009, 09:50:12 AM »
I want to know exactly which courses are too easy for the posters on GCA.  Or for that matter, any of our club's members. 

When the world finally figures out that the guys on TV are just DAMN GOOD, we can finally just let them shoot -20 each week and be done with it.  It's the egos of millions of golfers getting in the way, not a poor little golf ball or titanium driver.

I've yet to encounter a golf course where I walk off 18 and think, "man, I just made that course feel obsolete".  Just doesn't happen....and my hdcp is anywhere from a 1-4 during the year.  Who gives a sh!t if they fly bunkers that we can't....TV golf is an exhibition.

Clint,

It is not that the courses are too easy for average golfers, nor is it just the way pros overpower most courses. My concern is the PRESSURE this puts on clubs to add new tees and bunkers "to fit today's modern game." I trust that you do not doubt this. We are talking about projects that cost hundreds of thousands, even milllions, on a per club basis. Mainly brought about, IMO, but Pro V1-type balls.

I am not an engineer, but simple math tells me that a 10% roll back on the average flight of a drive would bring a 300 yard drive back to 270, a 250 drive back to 225. And most existing bunkers would be brought back into play.

A roll back on the ball is such a simple solution that seems to be in everyone's interest. The ball manufacturers will still sell as many balls, just a different type.

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2009, 10:04:15 AM »
Hey, another thought on this...did another craft die with the advent of the metal headed wood?  That would be that art of club making and repair...I can remember growing up with wood woods...and when a head cracked or the whipping came ondone...just about every professional worth his salt had a club repair shop...

...today's young PGA pros never learned this craft...granted they all know now is regrip em...and fed-x em back to the manufacturer for a new shaft...

Just yesterday, I was chatting about this with an older PGA pro and head club professiional, who was a former tour player and past winner of the old Pennsylvannia Open back in the late sixites when it was a regular tour event.  My old friend recalled the days when they would routinely adjust the weights of the club heads in various manners to fit everyone with the right swing weights...he also lamented how shot making has left the modern game as he can't manuever a golf ball anymore with this high tech clubs...and this seventy year old pro is still shooting in the seventies on most days...


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2009, 10:09:10 AM »
I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye on this very subject TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO and nobody listened then, either.  Nicklaus has spoken exhaustively on the subject as well.

But, there is no consensus.  The most depressing part to me is that the ASGCA never seems to want to take an official position on this.  I suspect it is because many of their members think it is good for business as the longer ball convinces clubs to keep remodeling.

That, plus the equipment companies fearing the loss of their current market share if they have to re-tool, plus the USGA and the R & A not wanting to seem weak by issuing a mea culpa, is what's holding up any change.  

The equipment companies are especially insidious.  There are constant editorials in the golf magazines espousing Clint's line of reasoning -- most recently in GOLF WORLD a couple of weeks ago.  But, follow the money, and think about who are the biggest advertisers in GOLF WORLD who pay that editor's salary.

The big drivers are equally responsible ... they made it possible for players to swing 100% at the driver.  In Nicklaus' day, or even Norman's, few pros were consistently long and straight with the driver.  That's why they were in awe of Nicklaus and Norman.  Nowadays damn near anybody can hit the driver.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2009, 10:21:29 AM »
Tom Doak,

ASGCA did have representatives on the USGA equipment committee. If we have an official position, I think its just to know how such things affect design. I think Damiam Pascuzzo took a pretty strong stance against longer balls as Prez.  Frankly, I have never heard anyone, other than posters here, comment that we favor anything because it brings in more business. 

Far more courses ask me to remodel to improve maintenance conditons than to add length or move bunkers.  Courses need renovation for so many reasons that doing so for equiment is a pretty insignificant portion of any gca's business.

BTW, Frank Thomas had another of his "we have reached the limit" articles on his website just a few days ago.  And in it, he again states why statistically we think the problem is way bigger than it really is.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Chris Wirthwein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2009, 10:21:54 AM »
The ball and the clubs should be dialed back. But I have my doubts whether this will ever happen. So in the mean time, I propose the professional tours and the USGA take a different approach: Make the par 72 courses the pros play into par 70s by making a couple of the par 5s into par 4s. (And make par 70 courses into par 68.)

Each week, professionals routinely score over par on 14 non-par five holes and then demolish the par fives. The 5-pars are simply too short -- so make them into long par fours.

Case in point...

Looking at the final stats from the US Senior Open at Crooked Stick (played at over 7,300 yds.), all fourteen of the non par-fives played over par. This included the 353 yd. par four 1st (4.076 strokes) and the 166 yd. par three 13th (3.051 strokes).

Avg. score on the par fives (for players 50+ years old):

#5 (600 yds.): 4.915 strokes
#9 (530 yds.): 4.760 strokes
#11 (556 yds.): 4.831 strokes
#15 (520 yds.): 4.722 strokes

This data of around 450 scores per hole shows that the longer the hole, the higher the score. FYI, the 480 yd. par-four 14th played at 4.414 strokes, and the GIR on the hole was 36.8%! (This might be the type of scoring we'd see when par 5s are made into long par fours.)

Crooked Stick (and many other fine courses) have no room to make their par fives even a yard longer.

Par 70 golf courses seem to be a way to keep the integrity of scoring intact during the many years of wrangling it will take to get agreement on dialing back the equipment. (If ever.)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2009, 10:34:00 AM »
Chris,

Great post and we discussed this recently.  Even the great Tiger Woods is over par for the year on par 3 and par 4 holes.  And, if you look at the tour stats, longer approach shots, such as those on par 3 holes the pros approach shots as a group still average about 7% of distance from the hole.

I agree on reducing par 5's.  And not just for score protection.  What real benefit do most second shots on par 5's yield, unless its a go/no go decision that is increasingly "go" almost automatically.

PS - I hope you have a flak suit on.....
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2009, 10:38:48 AM »
I'm not sure how much current stats can be used in this discussion.

Put the current PGA tour guys using thier current balls and equipment on courses from 30-40 years ago with those distances from back then and they would eat those courses alive.  It really would turn into a driver wedge fest and I'm sure scores would drop thru the floor.

Chris Wirthwein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2009, 10:44:39 AM »
Kalen -- Put the equipment of 30-40 years ago in the hands of players on courses opened since the advent of the 460cc driver and Pro-V.  What would we see? Could they break par?


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2009, 10:52:43 AM »
Kalen -- Put the equipment of 30-40 years ago in the hands of players on courses opened since the advent of the 460cc driver and Pro-V.  What would we see? Could they break par?



Chris,

I think we would both guess the same thing...have the current guys play with the old equipment on these modern length courses and of course they will get eaten up.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with stat comparisons between now and 40 years ago as things like stats on pars and scores relative to par mean absolutly nothing.

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2009, 10:56:31 AM »

I agree that the irons are better too...especially the hybrids...would not the biggest differential in distance be in the driver?...30 to 50 yards for the new big heads verus 5 to 10 yards for the short irons.

Hey just think if the manufacturers are really running things and their lobby is strong with the governing bodies...wouldn't it be a great marketing and revenue play to mandate competition clubs for the pros...?  Maybe a return to solid heads of persimmon which can be no bigger than 250cc and shafts no longer than 43 inches.   

It would not take the manufacturers long to retool and create a pro line clubs...just think we would start kids out with a line of kids clubs...when they are young teens they move up to the junior amateur line...as young adults we buy em there first set of adult amateur clubs...if they progress to higher levels they buy a set of the pro line clubs...

...I can see the ads now..."Is your game ready for our pro line?...the same clubs the big boys hit?


Chris Wirthwein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2009, 10:57:44 AM »
Kalen -- Right. Perhaps the point is that equipment has scuttled some of the game's great courses and made the contemporary art and skill of golf course design an all too rapidly moving target. Pity.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2009, 11:00:03 AM »
Kalen -- Right. Perhaps the point is that equipment has scuttled some of the game's great courses and made the contemporary art and skill of golf course design an all too rapidly moving target. Pity.

Chris,

I agree with you mostly.  I don't think the art and skill is completely gone, but certainly alot of the "working the ball on every shot" art is lost for the game....even though I can easily work the ball left to right anytime I want!!   ;D

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2009, 11:16:04 AM »
March 1, 2010 Headline: NY Times, London Times, Chicago Trinune, etc.:

Golf Purists Petition for Distance Rollback


A petition signed by Jack Nicklaus, Tom Doak, a number of other leading architects, and hundreds of golf course architecture zealots was recently sent to the  PGA, the R & A , the USGA, and every state and regional  golf assocoaition in the United States. The letter called for a new ball that would reduce the maximum distance traveled by 10%. The petition pointed out that 300+ yard drives were making old classic golf courses obsolete, which in turn, has triggered a maddeing need to add length and new bunkers to existing golf courses, while new courses, such as Donald Trump's in New Jersey can be stretched to 8000 yards.

The movement was started by hundreds of self-described "architectual geeks" who participate in a web site called Golf Club Atlas.com where course architecture and golf history are discussed. The website includes pictures and desciptions of hundreds of the world's gretest courses. Participants on the website include many working architects, professional golfers, course superintendents, and hundreds of golfers who simply love golf course architecture.

"Something is tragically lost when bunkers, strategically placed years ago are now obsolete, mere target lines for ProV1's that land 30 to 50 yards over these once proud defenders of par" said Pat Mucci, a long-time partcipant on the website. Jack Nicklaus has been a critic of the current ball for many years, and has convinced the Ohio golf association to use a restricted flight ball in tournaments. It is believed that Augusta National is seriously considering the use of this ball for the 2011 Masters. Can these geeks really bring about a change?

« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 11:24:06 AM by Bill Brightly »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2009, 11:30:41 AM »
Jeff:  responses below.

Tom Doak,

ASGCA did have representatives on the USGA equipment committee. If we have an official position, I think its just to know how such things affect design. I think Damiam Pascuzzo took a pretty strong stance against longer balls as Prez.  [Thank goodness Damian solved the problem.  What about Steve Smyers, who was on the I & B committee for years, and who thinks all golf courses need to be 7800 yards long?]  

Frankly, I have never heard anyone, other than posters here, comment that we favor anything because it brings in more business.  [Of course not.  Who else would say anything, besides Geoff Shackelford?  That is the problem -- nearly everyone in the golf business is in favor of how they profit from creeping distance gains.]  

Far more courses ask me to remodel to improve maintenance conditons than to add length or move bunkers.  Courses need renovation for so many reasons that doing so for equiment is a pretty insignificant portion of any gca's business.  [Yes, too many of these clubs have bought into the notion that bunkers and greens have to be rebuilt often and that Donald Ross's ghost needs to be happy.  But, don't most of your renovation clients think they need to add length?  And do you give it to them?  If so, why, since you seem to be suggesting below that the problem is exaggerated?]  

BTW, Frank Thomas had another of his "we have reached the limit" articles on his website just a few days ago.  And in it, he again states why statistically we think the problem is way bigger than it really is.

P.S. to Bill B:  I don't think Mr. Nicklaus is going to let you take credit for starting the movement.

Doug Ralston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2009, 11:41:24 AM »
While I am in essential agreement with those of you who worry about making courses obselete, I am also disturbed, in a merely political way. Where are the capitalists among you now? This call for the clamping intervention of socialist governing bodies on the businesses of golf equipment makers is very contrary to oft expressed ideals of many on this site. Could it possibly be that when the religion of capitalism begins to impinge on your own businesses/creations, you will call forth the satanic practicioners of governing power to quash liberty?

I would, of course, but I am eclectic, and what works well is my first thought. Just wanted to laugh.

I cannot even hit the new equipment very far, and am no threat to any of your creations. That's the good news!  :P

Doug
Where is everybody? Where is Tommy N? Where is John K? Where is Jay F? What has happened here? Has my absence caused this chaos? I'm sorry. All my rowdy friends have settled down ......... somewhere else!

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2009, 12:12:39 PM »
OK, I COULD NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO POST THE JPEG, BUT HERE IS THE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY CURT SAMPSON AND PUBLISHED IN DMAGAZINE EARLIER THIS YEAR AFTER THE BYRON NELSON...I REALLY LIKE THE ARTICLE AND HOPE I'VE GIVEN IT PROPER CREDIT...I TRIED TO FIND THE ARTICLE ON DMAGAZINE'S WEB SITE BUT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.


The Gentleman and His Stick What would happen if today’s golf pros hit Byron Nelson’s driver?   

Byron nelson was an apple-cheeked country boy trying to balance the demands of matrimony and a difficult job. “Byron, we’ve been married one year,” Louise Nelson observed at the U.S. Open in suburban Pittsburgh in 1935. “I haven’t bought a new dress or a new pair of shoes or anything for myself in all that time. But you’ve bought four new drivers and you’re not happy with any of them. Either you don’t know what kind of driver you want, or you don’t know how to drive.” Early the next morning, the chastened husband sanded and shaped a Spalding in the Oakmont Country Club golf shop, and, as he recalled with considerable understatement in his autobiography, How I Played the Game, “I never had any trouble with my driving after that.”

MacGregor made a copy for him five years later, and that was the stick Nelson used to win all those tournaments in the ’40s. The company naturally produced a line of Byron Nelson autograph model clubs. I have one, procured many years ago by my brother at a rummage sale and then summarily swiped by me. A week before this year’s HP Byron Nelson Championship, I noticed the old brown driver in a bag of misfit clubs in my garage. And I thought what if? So I tucked the club under my arm and strolled onto the TPC practice tee the day before the tournament.

Approaching touring pros practicing is a delicate art. “Excuse me, Phil,” the deferential journalist will say, sotto voce, during a lull in the athlete’s exertion. “When you get a minute, may I ask about your plans for the U.S. Open?” But no matter how careful the timing and diplomatic the greeting, you still often get the gimlet eye and forbidding body language. “Maybe later,” Tiger Woods once replied to my gentle request, meaning “undoubtedly never.” But on this day of days, the old club and I were the coolest guys at the party.

Why did everyone want to hit the Byron Nelson driver? That we were at Nelson’s namesake tournament probably had something to do with it. For the older players who tried it—Michael Bradley, Vijay Singh, and Corey Pavin—the experience was pure nostalgia, because they had learned the game with flammable clubs in their bags (the transition to metal-headed woods took place in the mid-’80s). The younger players, I think, responded to the romance of the thing. Back in the day, hammer marks, drill holes, and dabs of lead were badges of honor, indicating thoughtful tinkering on off-the-rack equipment. But today’s sticks are relatively soulless and perfect. No modern pro stands in a tiny, shellacscented room with a rasp in his hand and motes of sawdust in the air. You don’t sand titanium.

“Wow, does that feel funny,” said Pavin after his first hit with the pear-shaped chunk of persimmon. “The ball feels like a marshmallow. It feels good, actually. You get a lot of feedback in the hands.”

The feedback continues in the air. With his third swing, Pavin hit a pop-up. Had the game been baseball, the second baseman would have had it. “Woops,” he said. “A little high on the face.” Minutes later, Vijay Singh swung the wood wood and whacked a hook big enough to catch a whale. Today’s clubs hit knuckle balls; big curveballs just aren’t a part of the game anymore. The old clubs were much harder to hit far and much harder to hit straight.

The club’s look disoriented the pros. The scale looked off, like a 4-ounce can of beer. According to Randy Shade, a technician in the Adams Golf equipment van, the overall length of the Nelson driver was a little more than 43 inches, and the volume of its head was about 170 cubic centimeters. Modern drivers are usually about 45 inches long, and their canned ham-sized heads encompass up to 460 cubic centimeters, the legal limit. The plain brown stain, the lightly rusting steel shaft, the whipping holding the head and shaft together, and the Phillips screws securing the sole plate and the insert— none of these elements has an equivalent in today’s golf sticks.

The acoustics also threw the world’s best players for a loop. Modern clubs contacting modern balls produce a shrill, resounding threek—or the sharp knock of a coconut falling on concrete. But the Nelson driver made only a subtle, muffled slap.

 “It’s so quiet, it’s like a silencer,” said Kevin Streelman, a pro I’d never heard of. (So much for who I’ve heard of. Streelman finished tied for 13th and won $125,666 in the tournament.) The Illinois native and Duke graduate put down his Cleveland HiBore Monster XLS driver, whose Mitsubishi Rayon shaft was decorated with pictures of ninja throwing discs. His shots with the modest old wooden club flew low and not very far—about 50 yards shorter than with his gamer, he estimated.

Kevin Na loved the sweet feel of the Nelson autograph model. “You could go out with this driver and still score,” he said.

“I wouldn’t want to try it on a 490-yard par four,” replied Michael Bradley. Exactly—golf courses around the world have had to add length in response to the equipment. Four hundred ninety used to be a par 5. Now, with the average drive on the PGA Tour approaching 300 yards, 490 is easily accomplished with a drive and an iron.

By the time Little Byron and I reached the end of the tee line, we’d gathered an audience of about 25. Equipment reps with IDs on lanyards, over-tanned caddies in bibs and khaki shorts, a couple of players (including Swedish star Jesper Parnevik), and red-pantsed tournament volunteers— they all wanted to see Chad Campbell go old school. That Campbell agreed to take part in the experiment was a coup, because the Colleyville resident is regarded as one of the purest, most consistent strikers in the world. The results would therefore provide a credible picture of Then and Now in golf. To complete the scene, I’d acquired a dozen period golf balls from Gilbert Freeman, the director of golf at Lakewood Country Club in Dallas. I handed Campbell the club and a sleeve of Titleist balata 100s, going gray with age.

Uphill and against a light wind, Campbell had been hitting his Adams A4 Tech driver with its Graffaloy Tour X shaft an average 291 yards (as measured on a machine called TrackMan, a radar unit that can detail trajectory and distance of any golf shot up to 400 yards). With the wood club and the old ball, his average distance fell to 247. The old ball hit by the old club spun furiously through the air, about 60 percent faster than with Campbell’s high-tech stick.

Vijay Singh strolled over to investigate the hubbub. He wanted to try the Nelson driver, too, and he wanted to beat Campbell’s best (with a modern ball) of 253.9. Singh is an A-list golfer whose hatred of the media is legend, but after conversing with me briefly, he hit and hit until the TrackMan operator called out, “254!” The little crowd cheered. Vijay smiled. Meeting adjourned.

What had this exercise proved? Only that the game with wood woods and quicksilver balls had been a good one. Hooks and slices were amusing, and maddening, and 300- yard drives were more impressive when they were rare. Then about 25 years ago— without a vote—a triumvirate of consumers, manufacturers, and the United States Golf Association changed golf from an art to a track and field event.

What did Byron Nelson think about how evolving equipment changed his sport? I don’t think he was too sentimental about it. After all, 75 years ago, he was himself the first master of a new technology—the steel shaft. Nelson once gave me a tour of his workshop, but the sawdust on the floor came from the beautiful coffee tables and curio cabinets he made from scratch, not from wooden golf club heads. And in those few years near the end of his life when he hit the ceremonial first tee shot at the Masters, Nelson swung a big ol’ metal-headed Cleveland. 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back