News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2001, 08:12:03 AM »
Paul,

Then why did all the finalists in this years REMAX long driving competition have drivers measuring 48-50 inches and longer ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2001, 08:20:41 AM »
Robert Walker,

Can you believe I can't get the golf channel in my town in N.J.

But, by classics do you mean watching old films of the MASTERS, where they;re hitting 3-woods into # 13 and # 15
Long irons into # 18, barely reaching the corner, before the Nicklaus bunkers were installed ?

Or do you mean watching the Shell's Wonderful World of Golf playing on courses without sprinkler systems where the ball rolls forever.

For the USGA to ban the overall length of a club, they must have seen some correlation between a club's length and the distance the ball is traveling, wouldn't you agree ?

Or do you think it's just a concession to bag cover manufacturers ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2001, 08:26:45 AM »
hey , those bag cover guys have a pretty strong lobby.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2001, 08:33:24 AM »
Where do those bag cover guys get all their money from?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Robert_Walker

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2001, 08:52:33 AM »
Pat Mucci,
I now get The Golf Channel, and I have watched some of the classics. Players had much looser swings, and they lost a lot of power before making contact with the ball.
Also, look at their putting strokes. Man, those greens were slow. Those old strokes were so wristy.
Just an observation, but Charles Howell III swings tons better than Sneed did. Yes I said Sneed.
Even Archimedes said that the old guys lost a lot of power before making contact.
I'll never forget the day that Archie showed up at the Jersey City Golf Club with a 70 inch driver. What a hoot!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Turner

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2001, 09:00:59 AM »
Patrick

I don't know.  The contestants obviously think they're gaining something, but the very fact that they used a range of lengths 48-50+ yards confirms to me that ultimate length isn't a very strong function of shaft length (within reasonable limits).  If the contestants had all used 47 inch shafts, the distances would have been much the same, and if they were less, it would only be by a few yards.

The book is in the US and I'm in the UK.  But from what I recall, the researchers looked at an extreme comparison between a heavy 120 gram 42 inch steel shaft with a light 60 gram 48 inch graphite shaft and found a gain of about 12 yds for a Pro's drive, about 4%.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2001, 09:42:30 AM »
Robert Walker,

Archimedes was a 17 handicap until he discovered that longer
70 inch driver, shortly thereafter his handicap went to + 4.

It was only after that dramatic improvement in his golf game that he made his now famous pronouncement about moving the world.  Unbeknownst to many, golf, not physics was his first love.  His interest in the long driver started when his friend Jorge Vichon (sp) {the plane boss, the plane} complained that he couldn't hit the ball very far with standard equipment.

Just think what he might have done with graphite shafts and titanium heads.

Paul Turner,

When people who do something for a living, professionals, make an equipment choice in a competition, it is usually because they are results oriented, and only results oriented.

It was also interesting to find out that they all used the same shaft, a shaft I hadn't heard of before.  I wonder If anyone can tell us more about this shaft and the manufacturer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Turner

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2001, 10:09:27 AM »
Patrick

I'm much more inclined to believe the physicists who can preform controlled experiments and prove how ultimate distance varies with shaft length.

Just because a long drive champ uses a 50 inch driver doesn't convince me that he'd have lost any, or more than just a few, yards using a 47 inch driver.  

So I cannot see any real benefit constraining the shaft length to 47 inches; what's the point if we're only talking a few yards?  

It's much more effective to force an increase in minimum ball diameter or reduction in ball weight.  

I grew up playing with the British ball and the change to the US ball was pretty painless, so I don't understand why the governing bodies don't go this route again.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2001, 10:41:20 AM »
Patrick,
The shaftmaker is Penley. Their site is:  

http://www.horsepowergolf.com/

Patrick, I have a young man , Matt Robbins, who helps me out at the course. He told me a story about you, (I hope it's you otherwise you can disregard the rest) a member and him going to retrieve a dead cart out on the course one day. You let him drive one of the carts back and he got it stuck in a bunker by the practice green. He thought you might not remember him but his mother's name is Teri and she was a club champ at Preakness. He also said your father forgot more about clubs than most people will ever learn. He says hi.    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mike Clayton

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2001, 11:54:03 AM »

Mac O'Grady played the European tour in 1982 with 8 clubs -1 and 3 woods,3,5,7,9,SW and putter.He finished 3rd in the British PGA - the biggest tournament after The Open- and 42nd on the money list.He could hit the  7 iron between 140 and 180 with what was apparantly the same swing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2001, 04:27:52 PM »
Mike

What happened to O'Grady? He seems to have vanished. I've tried to track down some of his literature, which I'm told is a little bit out there, but worth a look. Does he still play these days?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2001, 09:45:30 PM »
Wacko Macko was recently (last two months) seen in Orlando giving a group clinic to 16 people at the driving range at North Shore before it opened.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Clayton

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2001, 10:05:03 PM »
Shane

I have a little of Mac's literature re the swing -amazing stuff .Might have had more talent than all except Seve and Tiger.
Mac's 10 Commandments of Golf
composure ,endurance ,equanimuty,fortitude,nonchalance forebearance,patience stoicism,serenity and sang-froid.

Peter Thomson
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2001, 10:36:40 PM »
Jim Kennedy,

Yes, that's me.

I also used to play golf with Matt's dad Eric, who we used to bet wouldn't hit his own fairway.  I hope he inherited his mom's game.  Say hello for me.

My dad was fairly accomplished as a player and a teacher.

Thanks for the nice remembrance.

Paul,

My experience with grass leads me to have more confidence in field results than lab results.  

I would submit that the extra length gained by longer clubs is not just a few yards.  If it was, we'd still be using 43 and 43.5 inch drivers.  Club head weight and a flatened swing plane are the most likely impediments to longer distances, but if technology continues on its path, that problem could be solved, resulting in longer distances.

The British ball was great to play into the wind, and noticeably longer.  The one ball rule was implemented to eliminate ball selection depending on wind, etc., etc.. And,
I believe it was a positive step with respect to the play of the game.

If we accept your theory about maxing out at 47 inches, then
regulations limiting length won't affect play, but they do set the stage and herald that the USGA can and will regulate equipment and golf balls, for the good of the game.

But, that's just my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman aka BillV

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2001, 04:57:05 AM »
Robert Walker

Ed Sneed's swing wasn't nearly as good as Sam Snead.  I assume you mean Sam. ;D

And I think you mean Howell's is more mechanically adventageous.  Better is too subjective.

Just think what Sam could have done with that swing!

Some of us never let it rest.  On both sides.  ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs
« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2001, 10:44:26 AM »
Shivas,

One of the things that surprised me in watching Langer, Parnevik, Norman, Irwin and others, is how little they work the ball, hitting it much straighter than the pros I watched 30 -40 years ago.  Then again, I'm hitting it straighter, and I'm 40 years older.

Let's hope this is the first of many important steps the USGA will take on balls and equipment in the years to come.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »