[Jim_Kennedy]

Jud,
This has a dime sized effective hitting area


This has an effective hitting area the size of a small car......


.....and the technology has been a major league benefit for the average player who doesn't have time to practice, can not easily get the ball airborne, can not get rid of the last bit of fade, or who cannot consistently find the optimal place on the face when striking the ball.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
No, because you know it's correct information. You should do your own research, that way you'll believe it when you find out that it's  true, and that I'm not just flappin' my gums.

All you really have to do is go outside and hit an old persimmon driver and a brand new 460cc___ and let us know the difference. I've done that with my wooden Ping vs. my Titleist and I know the difference in yardage that I get.

p.s. Chad Campbell recently did such a test for GD, within the last year, May I think.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
No, because you know it's correct information. You should do your own research, that way you'll believe it when you find out that it's  true, and that I'm not just flappin' my gums.

All you really have to do is go outside and hit an old persimmon driver and a brand new 460cc___ and let us know the difference. I've done that with my wooden Ping vs. my Titleist and I know the difference in yardage that I get.

p.s. Chad Campbell recently did such a test for GD, within the last year, May I think.

Persimmon drivers were made with low lofts so they would not spin the balata balls too much. Modern drivers are made with much higher lofts, because the modern ball does not spin very much. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to conduct a test without significant adjustments and controls. Your so called test that Chad Campbell did was simply a case of the blind leading the blind.

It is impossible for me to tell if you are providing correct information, if you don't define "anywhere near".

[Jim_Kennedy]

GB,
My Ping is 10.5, and is a common loft for the time. My Titleist is 9.5

The rest of what you just said is baloney. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

......and why it's baloney  is because the test w/Campbell has also been done by other players w/the same kind of results. The reason you'll never be able to make a persimmon driver go as far is because it's too damn heavy, it's weight is too high on the face, and it has no COR, and it cannot be swung as fast as a modern day Titanium driver.

You know this stuff is true, it's first grade knowledge of golf clubs. Quit being contrary just for the sake of it.

p.s. there isn't one sane person on the planet who would take your side in this.   

[Garland Bayley]

GB,
My Ping is 10.5, and is a common loft for the time. My Titleist is 9.5

The rest of what you just said is baloney. 

And your old driver had a heavy steel shaft, and your new driver has a graphite shaft? And how does the stiffness compare between the two shafts? Have you had it measured? What about total weight? Swingweight? Were you custom fitted for both clubs by a competent clubfitter? What is the swing speed difference between the two when you swing them?

Usually you have some good insights, but on this issue it appears that you are the one full of baloney.

[Richard Choi]

No need to argue, there have been many tests done on this subject. Golf Digest and Golf Magazine have done many tests on this, the latest with Adam Scott on Golf Digest, I believe.

The difference in distance between the modern driver and persimmon driver (when hit well) is not that great (around 5%). The real difference comes if you use old balata ball against the modern balls (>10%). The real difference between the modern driver and persimmons is in MOI. Your mis-hits go much further (which is probably what Jim is noticing) with the modern driver.

[Garland Bayley]

... it has no COR...

p.s. there isn't one sane person on the planet who would take your side in this.   

Of course it has COR! To claim it has no COR is the epitome of ignorance! So I guess you are claiming the entire population of the planet is as ignorant as you.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,

That is the point, one cannot perform like the other because they have different properties.

By the way, both clubs have a similar frequency, as tested on my machine which was a gift from one of my buddies at the old Brunswick Golf Co.

[Garland Bayley]

"You will not get anywhere near the performance from a persimmon smacked on the screws than you will from a new ______ 460cc titanium driver smacked in the same place."

That is what Jim wrote. To me he implied same speed on center hits.

No need to argue, there have been many tests done on this subject. Golf Digest and Golf Magazine have done many tests on this, the latest with Adam Scott on Golf Digest, I believe.

The difference in distance between the modern driver and persimmon driver (when hit well) is not that great (around 5%). ...

Richard's definition of "anywhere near" is 5%. Somehow, I don't think Jim's was in that range.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It doesn't have the COR of Titanium.

As I said, the truth is not what you are looking for here, only conflict. Go beat yourself up.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

That is the point, one cannot perform like the other because they have different properties.

By the way, both clubs have a similar frequency, as tested on my machine which was a gift from one of my buddies at the old Brunswick Golf Co.

And it is entirely possible to hand some golfer a persimmon driver and a VW bug on a stick, and have that golfer produce longer, better shots with the persimmon driver.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Richard,
Have a look at the test w/Campbell (GD, May). He was over 30 yards longer with the new club/modern ball than with the old club/modern ball, more like 10%.

[Garland Bayley]

It doesn't have the COR of Titanium.

As I said, the truth is not what you are looking for here, only conflict. Go beat yourself up.  

I quote authoritative sources and ask for authoritative sources, and you come up with statements like flapping your gums, and baloney. Who's looking for truth and who is looking for conflict?

[Garland Bayley]

Richard,
Have a look at the test w/Campbell (GD, May). He was over 30 yards longer with the new club/modern ball than with the old club/modern ball, more like 10%.

Richard,

Please tell Jim that was not a controlled test and was not worth the paper it was written on.

Please take the to mean that you are in no way obligated to do so.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sorry Garland, you can try to lay off the blame on me, but 'flappin gums' had nothing to do with you, and 'baloney' (both times I said it) had the big-old smiley accompanying it, like this one ->
But again, I'm fairly sure that you really won't see it that way so there is no good reason to continue. 

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Garland, you can try to lay off the blame on me, but 'flappin gums' had nothing to do with you, and 'baloney' (both times I said it) had the big-old smiley accompanying it, like this one ->
But again, I'm fairly sure that you really won't see it that way so there is no good reason to continue. 

I can believe you were being good hearted in your flapping gums and baloney, but to claim I am not looking for truth is the epitome of conflict. Am I overusing epitome? I had to look up to find the e instead of a y, so I need my practice.

If I send a golfer to a clubfitter to be fit for a persimmon driver with a steel shaft, and if I also hand him Matt Ward's infamous 47" 5.5 degree Bang driver, would you not believe that in general a golfer would get better results from the persimmon driver?

[Mike Cirba]

Whatever happened to the attitudes exemplified in this 1916 article? 

[Mac Plumart]

Garland in your comment to Jim you say...

"So I guess you are claiming the entire population of the planet is as ignorant as you."

I take great offense in that, as I am not getting due credit for being WAY more ignorant than Jim.   

Don't short change me bro-han!!   

[C. Sturges]

Joe,
Good topic.  The thing to look at is handicaps.  All the modern clubs make it easier to hit the ball, but not get it in the hole. With this the handicaps have gone done slightly, but not in relation to the improvements in technology.

[Garland Bayley]

Whatever happened to the attitudes exemplified in this 1916 article? 

If you mean the immense enthusiasm for playing a difficult golf course, then I would say it is the plethora of entertainment options available today that were not available then. I would guess that perhaps on rare occasions some of the members of this site have skipped some golf just to participate here.

[Joe Bentham]

While I'm more interested in the average player's game and how his enjoyment of the game has been impacted by technology, its hard to ignore the stats for the pros.
Robert Garrigus led the pga tour in average driving distance last year at 312 yards, the average for the whole tour was 287.9.  In 1980 Dan Pohl lead the tour with an average of 274.3 which would have made him 176th this last year.
Now I'm curious if Garland thinks that RGarrigus just found the sweet spot that much more then Dan Pohl did or if the difference can be attributed to the advancements in technology?
Over the same time frame there hasn't been the same change in scoring average.  Tiger Woods lead the tour in scoring average this last year at 68.05 which is a full stroke and a half better then Lee Trevino's 69.73 which lead the tour in 1980.  But Tiger's scoring average was over a full stroke better then Steve Stricker, who was second last year.  So if you throw out Tiger, Trevino's 69.73 hold up pretty good.  It would have only been good enough for 7th last year but there was quit a log jam around 69.5 and 69.73.
So I think these numbers back up Mr. Sturges's and others assertion that even for the tour pros the improvement in scoring (if you can even make an argument that theres been one) isn't in relation to the improvement in technology.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Joe,
I'd look at those stats another way.

In 1980- the #11 player's scoring avg. would earn him 116th place in 2009.
In 1980- the #3 players scoring avg. would earn him 83rd place in 2009.

That's a sizeable difference.

[Bill_McBride]

Joe,
I'd look at those stats another way.

In 1980- the #11 player's scoring avg. would earn him 116th place in 2009.
In 1980- the #3 players scoring avg. would earn him 83rd place in 2009.

That's a sizeable difference.

I think the underlying theme of this thread has got to be the lack of benefit to the average handicap player from his fancy new clubs.  There may be a bit of extra length but amateurs' scores are stuck in the same range as they've been for decades.

[Richard Choi]

Richard,
Have a look at the test w/Campbell (GD, May). He was over 30 yards longer with the new club/modern ball than with the old club/modern ball, more like 10%.

Jim, I just read up on the article and there are a couple of things you need to be aware of.

1. The main difference in distance is coming from the swing speed. Chad logged 113 mph with a modern driver and 106 with persimmon with a 43 inch steel shaft. The article indicates that this alone would account for about 15 yards (~5%), which I agree. Which is perfectly consistent with what I had said before. In fact, if you switch that steel shaft with a 44 or 45 inch graphite shaft, you will see even less difference in the swing speed (which does not have anything to do with the persimmon head).

2. If you look at the chart, you will see that the smash factor (the conversion of swing speed to ball speed) is identical between the modern titanium and persimmon driver. However, with Chad's swing, the persimmon driver is producing too much spin, which is what accounts for rest of the distance difference. I would argue that if you took time to custom fit a persimmon driver head with lower loft that produce less spin, you can get back that additional 5% difference that the article noted, which would bring us back to 5% difference.

The identical smash factor CLEARLY indicates that when hit in the sweet spot, there is really no difference between a modern titanium driver and the persimmon driver. The only difference between those drivers are coming from the shaft length and weight (and not COR).

When Adam Scott went through the test, the results were very similar. He had identical smash factor between titanium and persimmon drivers as well. But the persimmon driver fit Adam much better and he was able to produce better trajectory (with less difference in distance as result). He even commented that he could have gotten a few more yards out of the persimmon driver if he had a couple of weeks to practice with it.

I just don't see any evidence that COR or even the titanium head is that much of a difference in distance as you believe, at least with these pros as they hit the same sweetspot on almost every swing. The bigger differences are coming from the shaft and the ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()