[Ally Mcintosh]

Over the weekend in St Andrews, there was a lot of discussion about technology. Inevitably, that centred around reducing the distance the ball can travel... This would quite clearly help out with the ever increasing length of our courses and in turn help sustainability, slow play and safety... Anyway, there were a few things said that made it very obvious indeed how big a task this would (or will) be...

Tom MacKenzie tabled the idea (discussed often on here) that we should reduce the number of clubs in the bag for the pros... I'd go one step further and say we reduce the number of clubs in the bag for all... Reading between the lines of one thing in particular that was said, this seems like an attainable objective, one much easier than bringing back the ball...

The rewards are not the same - we will not reduce our course lengths that way...

But... It does hand some significant advantages back to the designer by revitalising the need for shotmaking and in turn the need for strategy...

So my question - if you were to try and sell this idea to our governing bodies, how would you do it and how many clubs would you look at reducing the current fourteen by?

[Mark Chaplin]

Ten is plenty, two woods, seven irons and a putter

[Steve Salmen]

I think the equipment manufacturers will not be thrilled about the idea.  Maybe less so than rolling back the distance of the ball. I don't really think fewer clubs is a great defense.  I carry 9 clubs and don't feel like I lose more than a shot a round due to equipment.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Bobby Jones win his majors using 10 hickory shafted clubs in his bag?

[Brent Hutto]

On what basis are you going to possibly sell this idea? That the manufacturers will sell fewer clubs? That the vast majority of golfers who carry their bag on the back of a golf cart will be able to fit more other junk on there instead of clubs? That it makes scores go up? That it will annoy the heck out of players who want to play stock shots all the time?

There's no large-scale constituency for this idea at all. It appeals to curmudgeons and contrarians, sure. But most people who want to play with nine or ten clubs just go ahead and do it. Making it a Rule would only force the people who don't want to play that way to do so and there's no upside for those people. who are the majority of golfers by a huge margin.

It's like some guy who likes riding his bicycle to work agitating to have cars outlawed.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Steve,

I am not suggesting the number of shots will go up, I'm just suggesting people will have to manufacture the shots to make their score... By the sound of things, you may already be good at that....

As for the equipment suppliers, I'm not so sure. People will still buy the full set of irons. They just might choose to leave out one on any given day and not carry all 3 wedges and 2 hybrids... For one thing, it would stop the pros having a wedge for all circumstances...

And it is the pros (and all that they represent) that will really get hit... Average players are just as good with a half set as a full set...

[Ally Mcintosh]

On what basis are you going to possibly sell this idea? That the manufacturers will sell fewer clubs? That the vast majority of golfers who carry their bag on the back of a golf cart will be able to fit more other junk on there instead of clubs? That it makes scores go up? That it will annoy the heck out of players who want to play stock shots all the time?

There's no large-scale constituency for this idea at all. It appeals to curmudgeons and contrarians, sure. But most people who want to play with nine or ten clubs just go ahead and do it. Making it a Rule would only force the people who don't want to play that way to do so and there's no upside for those people. who are the majority of golfers by a huge margin.

It's like some guy who likes riding his bicycle to work agitating to have cars outlawed.

This surprises me Brent... Maybe others share your view in which case I am driving down a dead end...

But why and when were fourteen clubs introduced in the first place?.... Would you care to see more?... What are the advantages of fourteen over twelve... or ten?

[C. Squier]

What a romantic, non-sensical idea.  Just what the game needs....more ways for the average hack to stink it up worse than they already do.  Which in turn will cause rounds to last even longer and not solve ANY of the problems the game faces today.

Average players need of shotmaking: The ability to get it in the air.

Average players strategy: Once in the air, keep it on the correct hole.

[JNC Lyon]

I think reducing the club limit would be great for golf for a few reasons:

1) The game would become less expensive.  People would be inclined to buy fewer clubs and smaller bags.

2) The game would become more interesting to play, especially at the highest levels.  Players would need to be creative, to know how hit different shots with the same club.  There would be more to a pre-shot routine than yardage charts.

How many high handicappers need fourteen clubs?  I cannot stand the attitude of 20 handicappers who think they need the latest equipment to get an advantage.  If you hit the ball 150 yards and dead sideways, there is no difference between a six iron and a seven iron, or between a zip groove Vokey and a beat up Spalding wedge from the garage.  I think a reduction of clubs would reduce this needless infatuation with technology.

3) The game would be faster to play.  Players would lug around fewer clubs.  They would also spend less time selecting clubs and instead have to rely on feel.

I played with 14 clubs for awhile.  I got rid of my lob wedge.  I could never make a choice between the sand wedge and the lob wedge.  Then I lost my 3-iron last fall and realized I was better off without it!  I am currently playing with 12 clubs.  I am trying to figure out how to get it down to ten.  Of course, taking away two clubs from the bag is like pulling teeth.  We'll see if I can get there!  I think I would favor a ten club limit.  However, I will not impose that anybody until I can play with ten clubs myself!

[JNC Lyon]

What a romantic, non-sensical idea.  Just what the game needs....more ways for the average hack to stink it up worse than they already do.  Which in turn will cause rounds to last even longer and not solve ANY of the problems the game faces today.

Average players need of shotmaking: The ability to get it in the air.

Average players strategy: Once in the air, keep it on the correct hole.

How do 14 clubs work better for the average golfer than 10 clubs?  Please explain that.  A high handicapper would be much better off with fewer clubs.  I'm also not sure how having 10 clubs would make rounds last longer?

[Brent Hutto]

This surprises me Brent... Maybe others share your view in which case I am driving down a dead end...

But why and when were fourteen clubs introduced in the first place?.... Would you care to see more?... What are the advantages of fourteen over twelve... or ten?

Personally, I carry about 11 or 12 clubs if I have my three-wheeler and 9 or 10 when the bag's on my shoulder. But then again I almost never keep score. Tell me I'm supposed to shoot the best possible score over 54 holes of medal play and I'll put all 14 clubs in there just in case. Never know when that 3-iron might come in handy for punching out from the trees or that high-lofted wedge will gouge the ball out of a terrible lie in the rough.

It's my understanding that way back when some players used to carry 20-odd clubs. They introduced a Rule specifying 14 as the arbitrary number allowed. Could have just as easily been 12 or 15. If there were no Rule it would be a tradeoff between practicality and utility. No way I'm carrying 15+ clubs on my back but if I were playing from a golf cart or a caddy I can imagine all sort of oddball situations where extra clubs come in handy. Heck, as a lefty I'd love to have a right-handed iron and a wedge just to advancing the ball when it's up against a tree. But I'm perfectly happy to forgo that option since I tote my clubs.

A lot of people on this forum decline to play the game in the manner that is now normative. Somewhere along the line the best players in the world discovered that you can shoot the lowest possible 72-hole medal scores by sticking whenever possible to a few basic "stock" shots rather than trying to utilize creativity 30, 40, 50 times a round. Now maybe that kind of golf isn't as much fun (your typical PGA Tour player looks like he's undergoing a moderately unpleasant dental procedure for 4-1/2 hours each day) but it has been proven to produce the lowest scores. So any constraint that forces the player into manufacturing a shot in conditions where he'd otherwise hit the shot that he has practiced a couple hours a day for his whole life is going to move him away from that optimal-scoring game and back toward the game that has gradually been abandoned by the vast majority of elite players.

How many strokes? Hell if I know. That's an empirical question for which no experiments have been done. But if you could shoot a better medal score with 9 clubs than with 14 then you'd see bags with 9 clubs in them at every high-level competition. But you don't.

One lovely thing about golf is that any player can choose to impose a wide variety of restrictions upon himself beyond those specified in the Rules. If you want to play with a niblick and a putter using a gutta-percha ball and play from the 4,800-yard red tees that is allowed under the Rules. Or forgo relief and drops and about 90% of the Rulebook, just hitting the ball over and over until you hole out. And yet some guy can play the same course right behind you in the Tour style with 14 clubs and a yardage book and all those special Rules that let you lawyer your way to free drops and who knows what all.

What's funny is the guy who want to play like a Tour pro never suggests legislating your practices out of the game. So why do you feel a need to drag him kicking and screaming into playing a throwback game that you enjoy and he does not?

[Steve Salmen]

JNC,

Take the 5 and 7 out of your bag.  I carry D,2,4,6,8,9,pw,sw,P.

In my experience, fewer clubs makes decision making easier.  If you're in the middle of the gap, take the longer club and choke down.  Usually I only club down if the shot is downwind or there's trouble long.  Let's take this to the (somewhat silly) extreme.  What club would you hit if you only played with one club?

[Brent Hutto]

Let's examine a non-extreme form of the question...

You're standing in the fairway whatever your "perfect" 7-iron distance might be. For me that's somewhere around 140 yards or maybe a bit less. Say it's 140. The task at hand is to hit the ball to the middle of the green.

Is anyone suggesting that tossing your 7-iron into the woods and instead using the 6 or 8 would make the shot easier? Or that it will result in increased odds of the ball ending up on the green?

Honestly, if having to choke up four inches on your 6-iron and shorten your swing makes the shot easier then you ought to just use that shot every time. Or if hooding the face of an 8-iron and swinging extra hard makes you more likely to hit the green then a hooded 8-iron is in fact the "perfect" club for the shot (in which case that 7-iron you threw in the woods is the "perfect" club from 150 yards, innit?).

What you guys are asserting is that golfers are too stupid to know what the best club is for a stock shot. And you're probably right, I'm as guilty as the next hacker of thinking I can get my 6-iron over that bunker, uphill, into the wind, on a 50-degree day. But you're just being bloodyminded to turn around and insist that the same stupid golfer will make the right decision just because he has less clubs to choose from. He'll make a different decision, a constrained decision but that isn't going to magically improve his results.

[JNC Lyon]

Let's examine a non-extreme form of the question...

You're standing in the fairway whatever your "perfect" 7-iron distance might be. For me that's somewhere around 140 yards or maybe a bit less. Say it's 140. The task at hand is to hit the ball to the middle of the green.

Is anyone suggesting that tossing your 7-iron into the woods and instead using the 6 or 8 would make the shot easier? Or that it will result in increased odds of the ball ending up on the green?

Honestly, if having to choke up four inches on your 6-iron and shorten your swing makes the shot easier then you ought to just use that shot every time. Or if hooding the face of an 8-iron and swinging extra hard makes you more likely to hit the green then a hooded 8-iron is in fact the "perfect" club for the shot (in which case that 7-iron you threw in the woods is the "perfect" club from 150 yards, innit?).

What you guys are asserting is that golfers are too stupid to know what the best club is for a stock shot. And you're probably right, I'm as guilty as the next hacker of thinking I can get my 6-iron over that bunker, uphill, into the wind, on a 50-degree day. But you're just being bloodyminded to turn around and insist that the same stupid golfer will make the right decision just because he has less clubs to choose from. He'll make a different decision, a constrained decision but that isn't going to magically improve his results.

How many 20 handicappers are consistent enough to have a "perfect seven iron distance."  I'm guessing that most do not hit the ball consistently well enough to know how far a seven iron will go.  If a 22 handicapper is 150 yards out from the green, he is just as likely to get the ball on the green with a six iron or eight iron as he is with an seven iron.

Having fewer clubs would give him fewer choices and make him play by feel.  He would be less deluded about being able to hit each of his clubs to a certain yardage.  I'm not sure that it would improve his game.  However, it would not make him worse, and it definitely would make him play faster.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brent,

The last thing we need is to make the game more difficult for the average player... But I am saying (somewhat subjectively) that this will make no difference to the average player... What we do want is the bomb & gouge professionals to have the game made more difficult for them in ways other than lengthening and tightening our courses... I am suggesting that this is one way... If the latter is true, this is a good thing.....

Either you are missing my point or I am missing yours... or possibly, the theory makes no sense in practice... But you have yet to convince me...

NOTE - I have modified my initial post to say that Tom MacKenzie suggested this for the pros and not all golfers... It is me who is suggesting the blanket change...

[Jay Flemma]

I wonder if...if mind you...having fewer clubs in your bag might reduce the time you take wavering over what to hit and sped up play ever so slightly?  Any ideas if that might prove true?

[Scott Warren]

I think the equipment manufacturers will not be thrilled about the idea.  Maybe less so than rolling back the distance of the ball.

I have always thought the best way to get the OAMs on side with winding back the ball was to introduce an alternative that would do even more damage to their bottom lines, which less clubs would surely do. Once you wave that in front of them, you might find they are a bit more sympathetic to winding the ball back.

I only carry 12 clubs and know lots of others who do. I'd say 10 is the number where you start to have an impact. A wood, a hybrid, a wedge, a putter and 6 irons - every 5 degrees from 25 to 50.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Do you know how many average or below average people I have played with / caddied for that carry more than 14 clubs? Countless. They have 1 club for this shot, one club for that shot, and so on.

What makes you think that 1. Normal people will actually take the sticks out of their bags? Especially when they have already paid for them.
2 How do you think you will be able to convince these people carrying 17/18 clubs that they will be better if they dont have their sand wedge for bunker shots, and sand wedge for fairway shots? They have a club for every shot, why would they be better if they only have a club for 1/2 the shots!

[Brent Hutto]

Ally,

What do you really mean by "make no difference"? It makes some difference surely. I know I am not physically capable of shooting the same score with three clubs as with ten clubs. Do you have in mind some significant difference? Because absolutely, there is no number of clubs or type of equipment that will prevent me from pissing away about a shot per hole, on average, within 100 yards of the green.

So if the difference you're looking for is shooting in the 70's instead of playing bogey golf then it's not about how many clubs I carry. But are you asserting that if I tossed out out half of the twelve clubs I had in my bag yesterday (or maybe it was 11, I don't recall exactly) my scores would not be a single stroke higher? Because I've played enough with reduced sets to know that's not true. The true difference in my game is probably 2, 3, 4 strokes a round for seven clubs versus a more or less full set. And the difference goes up somewhat if I drop down to four or five clubs.

To one point of view, a hacker shooting 95's and 96's is not qualitatively different than one shooting 91's and 92's. But it feels like a difference to the hacker.

Having fewer clubs would give him fewer choices and make him play by feel.  He would be less deluded about being able to hit each of his clubs to a certain yardage.  I'm not sure that it would improve his game.  However, it would not make him worse, and it definitely would make him play faster.

The key statement is "make him play by feel". You presume that he is capable of doing that, perhaps because it is something you can do well yourself. If you mean "by feel" to imply taking partial swings or manipulating ball position and clubface angle rather than choosing different clubs I can point out any number of people with zero ability to do that. Some of whom are perfectly capable of playing bogey golf in the customary manner.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think the equipment manufacturers will not be thrilled about the idea.  Maybe less so than rolling back the distance of the ball.

I have always thought the best way to get the OAMs on side with winding back the ball was to introduce an alternative that would do even more damage to their bottom lines, which less clubs would surely do. Once you wave that in front of them, you might find they are a bit more sympathetic to winding the ball back.

I only carry 12 clubs and know lots of others who do. I'd say 10 is the number where you start to have an impact. A wood, a hybrid, a wedge, a putter and 6 irons - every 5 degrees from 25 to 50.

Scott (and Brent),

At a guess, 10 sounds like the right number that you would start to have a noticeable impact on the 18 handicapper... But you would have an impact on the pros at 13...

[V. Kmetz]

I've got to agree with Brent...if a golfer wants to play with fewer than 14, so be it, we do not need to lower the maximum for any special reason.

And I don't think any general policy is going to improve people's enjoyment or skill at the game, outside of designing cheaper, sustainable courses that don't punish average play.  Think about how glacially anything happens, even if it did.

Essentially this is a debate about Tournament golf vs. Regular Golf.  They are two different animals altogether and within themselves, they have many sub-classifications.  The interest of national ruling bodies should be to provide as even playing ground for all parties as possible out of such wide-ranging demands of the game.

The arrival of the 14 club limit was born out of the emergence of steel shafts, a massive equipment debate of the time. The flexibility of approach to shot-making from hickories was stifled by steel-shafted clubs, so players chose to carry a large number of them of them in order to re-create the strokes required on the course.  This prompted the USGA into limiting the number of clubs carried to 14 on 1 Jan 1938; the R&A followed suit 1 May, 1939.  The number 14 wasn't scientific, but it wasn't arbitrary either.  it came from the ruling bodies' consideration of the clubs naturally in use during the previous eras of golf.

Putter
Driver
Brassie
Spoon
Cleek  
Long-iron
mid-iron
Mashie
Niblick
Mashie niblick
Jigger
Sarazen's Sand Wedge

In addition to those 12 commonly used there were also a few that weren't ubiquitous, but in heavy rotation

Baffing spoon (lofted wood)
Spade Mashie (6-iron)
Mid Mashie (3 iron)
Pitching niblick (8 iron)
Chipper

So with other odd implements that could've potentially brought a comprehensive total to nearly 20 clubs, I think the decision prior to World War II was fairly measured and an even compromise.  And I do not believe the essential nature of the game has improved or decayed so much that those 12, 17, 20 clubs no longer reflect the shot arrays contemplated by the golfer.

14's a good number.

cheers

vk

[Brent Hutto]

This will be my last comment on the subject as there's little be gained from arguing with guys who actually play the game pretty much as I do myself. But what I do for a living is statistics and I can't resist pointing out what I perceive as the essence of Ally's argument concerning pros versus hackers...

The significant difference for a Tour pro is tiny. If a change to the Rules or to how he plays the game has the effect of increasing his scores by one stroke every other round, well that's the difference between being a journeyman on the PGA Tour versus playing for peanuts on a third-tier tour somewhere.

On the other hand, a bogey golfer would barely even discern a difference of a full stroke per round. So the change may make a quantitatively larger difference in the bogey golfer's score but as a practical matter it's no difference at all.

But at the big-picture level I still fail to be convinced of any benefit to anyone from reducing the number of clubs allowed from 14 to some other number. I personally feel no desire to see the other guys I play with every weekend carry 11 clubs just because I carry 11 clubs. And frankly I have no interest whatsoever how the game is played at the professional level as I'm generally out hacking it around myself instead of watching those guys on TV.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brent,

I guess what I'm saying is that if you make that one stroke difference in the way the pros play their game, then they have to adjust to stay competitive...

 If they don't have that lob wedge in the bag or that second driver that helps them fade the ball rather than draw it, then perhaps they will think twice about blind-siding themselves or perhaps they will take 3-wood from the tee leaving a longer approach...

By making the game harder for the pro's without having to adjust the golf course (in exactly the same way as adjusting the ball), you make the influence of the golf designer and golf course that much more important...

I see that we are at polar opposites... My self-doubt has me thinking that I am missing something obvious... But I still can't see it...

[Steve Salmen]

Brent,

IMO there is no question that carrying 14 clubs is better for your score than any number fewer.  The best reason I can give you for me carrying 9 is that my bag weighs less with fewer clubs.

[Carl Johnson]

Let's examine a non-extreme form of the question...

You're standing in the fairway whatever your "perfect" 7-iron distance might be. For me that's somewhere around 140 yards or maybe a bit less. Say it's 140. The task at hand is to hit the ball to the middle of the green.

Is anyone suggesting that tossing your 7-iron into the woods and instead using the 6 or 8 would make the shot easier? Or that it will result in increased odds of the ball ending up on the green?  . . . .

How many 20 handicappers are consistent enough to have a "perfect seven iron distance."  I'm guessing that most do not hit the ball consistently well enough to know how far a seven iron will go.  If a 22 handicapper is 150 yards out from the green, he is just as likely to get the ball on the green with a six iron or eight iron as he is with an seven iron.

Having fewer clubs would give him fewer choices and make him play by feel.  He would be less deluded about being able to hit each of his clubs to a certain yardage.  I'm not sure that it would improve his game.  However, it would not make him worse, and it definitely would make him play faster.

Speaking as an old guy 20 handicapper and answering Mr. Lyon, who has it right for me.  I walk whenever permitted and am currently carrying (literally) eight clubs for my home course play: 3-wood, hybrid 4 iron, 6, 8, 9, 48 degree pitching wedge, 64 degree lob wedge (which is my sand club) and putter.  I play no better with more clubs, and I have figured out that 8 are easier (lighter) to carry than 14.  I hit a 3 wood off the tee and the fairway.  A driver is useless to me.  The closer I get to the green, the more important a variety of clubs becomes, for obvious reasons.  For a while I didn't carry the 9 iron, but I do think that that addition helps.  When I'm "between clubs" I normally choose to take the higher lofted one and come up short (assuming I don't have to carry over something like, say, the dreaded water).  I'd rather be in front of the green (or short on the green) for my next shot than long or in a greenside bunker, or, as likely, wide of a greenside bunker.  I am not deluded about my ability to hit each club a precise yardage.  I know tnat I do not have that ability and factor it into my club selection.  When I'm required to ride, I'll add the 5 and 7 irons, and 52 and 56 degree wedges, for what they may be worth.  I don't believe fewer clubs speed up my play, however.  I play fast regardless.  Speaking for myself, this is how I'm enjoying "playing" golf very much, but that having been said I do not believe that an attempt to limit by rule the number of clubs to something less than 14 has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell.

[Chuck Brown]

Reducing the number of clubs for elite players is NO answer to the current problem of technology-produced distance.  Period.

If you reduce the number of clubs in the bag, it will only increase the importance of, and emphasis on, bomb-and-gouge, driver-wedge, style of play.  Period.

As stated by several others above, it is a dumb, romantic idea with no application to the real problems of elite players obsoleting classic championship courses.  (Or, worse, forcing horrific design changes on those classic championship courses.)

On the other hand, for most of us recreational players, there is no problem with our "obsoleting" anything.  We can all be severely challenged at Maidstone or Skokie or Scioto or dozens of other clubs that have hosted major championships in the past but cannot do so now thanks (no thanks) to equipment technology.  And for us, it can indeed be a delight to play with as little as seven clubs.  I have a seven-club bag that is one of the greatest pleasures in all of golf for me.  But it has nothing to do with the technology debate.

I can assure you all -- the three most important clubs in JB Holmes' bag, and the last three that will come out, are driver, lob wedge and putter.  If you removed from his bag half of the other clubs in between driver and wedge, Holmes would just laugh and say, "Fine by me, ya'll!  Let's play!"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()