3 Wood and GCA

[Jamie Barber]

I think there should be a competition ball. Courses cannot be extended ad infiniteum and the distance the model ball goes now negates many of the original design intents (the obvious one being bunkers).

I think distance gains are 90% ball. Maybe modern players are fitter (I don't buy that really watching how some of the older players still hit it) and no doubt clubs are better and swings get better with better analysis tools, but mostly it's the ball.

My problem is not if they shoot 63, but the fact that courses need to be 7500 yds+ for pro golf. That's not progress in my book.

[George Pazin]

So in the end, does this whole thing just boil down to a twisted form of sadism by some old coots at a club?     I say that half jokingly, but I suspect in part its true. Is it if the course has doled out its fair share of "pain" on the members thru years of playing, then they want the pros to feel that same pain?

I really don't know on this one, just throwing it out there...

It's not sadism, it's weak egos - some folks (don't know how many, but unfortunately it seems to be the same ones who seek leadership positions) just can't accept that others are that much better than them.

I'm not at all surprised pros and top ams can hit 3 woods 275. I think it has little to do with getting up at 5 to lift. The forgiveness of the ball/club combo allows everyone to swing much harder than in the old days.

And these guys are good.

The saddest thing to me about all of this is that the standard approach to "defend" a course is stretch it out, narrow the fairways and grow the rough.

[JESII]

Really? "Everybody can hit it great"?

Did you know that one of the old guys...from the 40's...wrote up a ranking of the best he'd ever seen at each part of the game and the only place Hogan made the list was on mid-length putting? 8 - 15 feet or so if I remember correctly...

[Matt_Ward]

Jim Sullivan:

To answer your original question -- tour pros are moving towards a stronger 3 metal version -- can be 12 or 13 degrees. This allows them to use such clubs for tighter holes should their drivers be off. In addition, you see more players also including a five metal into the equation. Tiger uses it now more than his famed former 2-iron.

I agree w Dave -- the disparity in misses (among top players) is not that far apart as years ago when ballstriking could very well propel you to the top even with a mediocre week of putting. Poorer players today benefit from the technology than what they were able to from years back when their misses were really missed beyond what you see today.

One other thing -- the so-called yardage creep for more and more distance being gained has likely peaked. As a result -- I agree with Dave (two for two) that emphasis on the short game is now more important than ever before.

[JESII]

If I can just get Mucci on your guys side this could be a hell of an afternoon...

[Chris Buie]

I'm not really concerned how low the most proficient players shoot.  But at the 2008 Amateur I saw a guy drive it over the 13th green and another guy drive it just off the edge of the 7th green.  That is clearly out of hand.  I don't see a way to keep it semi-reasonable without having a competition ball.
I've seen quite a bit of tournament golf and I've never seen anybody swing as hard as some of those guys were doing last year.  It made me wonder that even with core strength training if these guys were going to end up with serious back problems in 15-20 years.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Missed shots aren't as bad because of these clubs.  ...

Sorry Dave, but the clubs have marginal effect. The bigger effect is in the ball. Your statement should read "Missed shots aren't as bad because of the ball".

[JESII]

Matt and Dave,

Are comparing players of similar level (i.e. PGA Tour, high level amateur, etc...) or just good players versus not so good players?

I ask because I think the flaw in your argument about people hitting it better is that misses are so much further off line now than they were then so that "swing 30%" might be a major factor...

[Garland Bayley]

...
Bayley:  I disagree that misses are way more offline than ever.  Yes, they're longer, but without the ball spinning and balooning away from you, I think even the nastiest misses these days are better than the nastiest misses 40 years ago, even though today's nasty miss is handicapped by the fact that it's a far more violent thrash than yesteryear's was.   

Perhaps you misunderstood me, because the above confirms we are in agreement.

[C. Squier]

...
Missed shots aren't as bad because of these clubs.  ...

Sorry Dave, but the clubs have marginal effect. The bigger effect is in the ball. Your statement should read "Missed shots aren't as bad because of the ball".

That's absurd.  No golf ball is any more forgiving than another on misshits.  The clubs are certainly more forgiving today.

Slow down the greens.  My theory for players trying to hit it as far as they do is because most greens are terribly difficult to hit and hold with anything longer than a 7 iron with consistency.  If you knew a well struck 4 or 5 iron would be able to hit and hold, you wouldn't mind laying further back off the tee.  It would also make the groove issue a non-starter as well as lofted soft shots would also have a chance to hold.  Huge benefit all the way down from PGA Tour golf to the local club's super not being stressed out b/c the membership DEMANDS 11 on the stimp.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Missed shots aren't as bad because of these clubs.  ...

Sorry Dave, but the clubs have marginal effect. The bigger effect is in the ball. Your statement should read "Missed shots aren't as bad because of the ball".

That's absurd.  No golf ball is any more forgiving than another on misshits.  The clubs are certainly more forgiving today.
...

Boy, I bet the club companies love you! They make wild assertions about the improved forgiveness every year that they cannot statistically verify. And, you appear to have bought their marketing hook, line, and sinker.

However, the USGA can easily verify the difference the ball makes when comparing the ProV to the old soft balata balls with absolutely no ambiguity.

[C. Squier]

...
Missed shots aren't as bad because of these clubs.  ...

Sorry Dave, but the clubs have marginal effect. The bigger effect is in the ball. Your statement should read "Missed shots aren't as bad because of the ball".

That's absurd.  No golf ball is any more forgiving than another on misshits.  The clubs are certainly more forgiving today.
...

Boy, I bet the club companies love you! They make wild assertions about the improved forgiveness every year that they cannot statistically verify. And, you appear to have bought their marketing hook, line, and sinker.

However, the USGA can easily verify the difference the ball makes when comparing the ProV to the old soft balata balls with absolutely no ambiguity.

And you haven't hit a blade iron next to a cavity back either.  Or a Bullseye putter next to an Anser. 

[JESII]

Dave,

I said the ball went further off line, Garland agreed with you.

Certainly balls spin less today so they spin less offline, but the drivers are two inches longer with shoe boxes on the end...people hit it further and wilder than ever...at least a duck hook 20 years ago headed for the deck as soon as possible...

[George Pazin]

There is not a ball on this planet that I cannot duck hook or banana slice...

Back to the original question, under the premise of the announcer, it would seem players today would hit far more 3 woods - yet they seem to hit driver more than ever. I can't really see how the length players hit 3 woods would be a dominant factor in design differences.

I have to think more about it.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Missed shots aren't as bad because of these clubs.  ...

Sorry Dave, but the clubs have marginal effect. The bigger effect is in the ball. Your statement should read "Missed shots aren't as bad because of the ball".

That's absurd.  No golf ball is any more forgiving than another on misshits.  The clubs are certainly more forgiving today.
...

Boy, I bet the club companies love you! They make wild assertions about the improved forgiveness every year that they cannot statistically verify. And, you appear to have bought their marketing hook, line, and sinker.

However, the USGA can easily verify the difference the ball makes when comparing the ProV to the old soft balata balls with absolutely no ambiguity.

And you haven't hit a blade iron next to a cavity back either.  Or a Bullseye putter next to an Anser. 

Of course I have!

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Dave is right on the money. Nick Price, for one, honed a swing designed for accuracy and consistency, not because he was stupid but because he was smart. That's what the game (and the equipment) demanded, and what it rewarded. When the game no longer demanded or rewarded that (starting sometime in the late-1990s), Nick's winning ways were almost over -- not because he couldnt/didn't gain an extra 20 yards on his (still straight) drives like everyone else did, but because now everyone else was swinging out of their shoes and still managing to get it in the fairway, and swinging out of their shoes again and still getting it to stop 10 feet from the pin. So it became a putting contest, and Nick, even at his very best and in his prime, was not a stellar putter (IMHO).  (Btw, during the US Open Tennis rain delay, did anyone catch the Conners-Krickstein match from 1991?  Long rallies, and Conners -- who at 39, couldn't overpiower from the baseline anymore -- coming to the net on any short ball. The game has never been better)

Peter

[DMoriarty]

As with most these distance arguments, I think most miss one of the major detrimental impacts of this technology.  It isn't just that the top players and those with high swing speeds have gotten very, very, very long, it is that the rest have not seen similar increases in distance.    So the difference between a long drive on the one hand and a medium or short drive on the other is now so large that it is becoming impossible to fit golfers on the same course. 

As for three woods, My carry distance with my modern three wood is only slightly longer than with my 1951 Macgregor Ben Hogan 4 wood.  Suffice it to say that we are not talking about 270 shots in my case.   I would be very surprised if most golfers' carry distance with their three woods more than about 190 yards. 

And imagine the 3rd at Merion playing at almost 100 yards longer than its original distance!  That ought to be absurd enough to convince people we have a real problem.   They took a challenging par three and essentially tacked on most of another par 3 for good measure.  In the past, a bogey golfer could play that hole as a par three. The golfer may have had to hit a club or two more, but the hole was playable as intended to a wide range of golfers even playing from the same tee box.   Can anyone imagine a bogey golfer playing the hole from the tee box they used on Saturday?    Even a slight mishit and the bogey might face a full iron on the second shot!   The point is, it is becoming very difficult to create a golf hole that offers anything resembling a similar challenge for long hitters and the rest of us.  The gap has grown too large. 

[George Pazin]

C'mon, David, everyone knows you just need to play the right tees and take some lessons!

Still thinking about the impact of the long 3 wood...

[JESII]

DM,

You must not have heard Shivas and Matt Ward...they just told us that the gap has closed...considerably...

[DMoriarty]

DM,

You must not have heard Shivas and Matt Ward...they just told us that the gap has closed...considerably...

Really?  Then I guess I need new equipment . . . do they make 5 1/2 degree three woods?    Will tight short-shorts help my driving distance, or will they just attract the ladies?  

[Garland Bayley]

DM,

You must not have heard Shivas and Matt Ward...they just told us that the gap has closed...considerably...

Really?  Then I guess I need new equipment . . . do they make 5 1/2 degree three woods?    Will tight short-shorts help my driving distance, or will they just attract the ladies?  

David,

You want help with the ladies? I suggest you follow John Daly's example. Anthony Gray does.

[Lou_Duran]

Moriarty is right.  I've long made the argument that the biggest problem with modern technology is that it helps the people who need help the least.  What I play and what the pros and national amateurs play are two different games.  That is the main reason I think that bifurcation is a good thing.

I was recently fitted for a larger headed driver with more loft and lighter shaft.  Fortunately, I was able to demo the club before spending the $550+, and when I went out to the range and compared it to my several generation old regular driver over several days, the differences were indiscernable.  By contrast, a much younger, stronger acquaintance who had gone to the same guy was fitted for a new driver, and he claims to have gained 30+ yards (I saw him hit a 300+ yard drive into a 15 mph wind with the new club, so I believe him).

[Kalen Braley]

My experience has also been the same as Lou states.

I've been playing the game for 14 years now and once I gained enough skill to hit my driver, distances have been mostly the same despite using several different versions of driver.  The biggest difference I've noticed is the forgiveness, but I'm not sure if its the club or ball that accounts for this.

[Wade Whitehead]

Are geometries and materials of the three wood the least changed (over the past 20 years) of any club in the bag?

I think so.

WW