Merion 1971 vs. Merion 2013

[Bryan Icenhower]

is there not a 4th option of capping it where it is now?

[Ted Sturges]

Ted,

I don't label anybody as being in the rollback world, I leave it simply to those responding to the question...

Seriously, wouldn't the easiest thing be to just leave the courses alone and let the players shoot lower scores?

Least expensive, least controversial, most unified way of moving forward...

But if we do nothing...where does it end?

If one were to graph the tour pro distance increases the last 30 years alone (I haven't done this but would be curious to see the results of anyone who has), in another 20 years they'll be hitting 450 yard drives and 250 yard 7 irons.  There won't be any courses in existence today that would have a prayer at defending par.  Do you really think that makes sense?  How many new courses are we going to have to build?  That approach will render hundreds of wonderful courses in existence today obsolete.

TS

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ted,

You're right, where will it end ?

While distance may not increase, vis a vis quantum leaps, it will continue to increase.

Where will it end ?

[Brent Hutto]

Well to acknowledge Bryan's point, at the very least the ball testing standard as of TODAY should specify the distance allowed for a ball hit with 20% greater clubhead speed than any Tour player today can produce.

I suspect that USGA/R&A continues their old assumption that if you specify a distance limit at what seems like high clubhead speeds today, then you can make a good guess as to what will happen a generation from now when those speeds increase. That's basically where they screwed up with the old wound-ball to ProV1 transition. They figure "Hey, if you hit a Titleist Tour Balata with a 130mph clubhead speed it'll spin so much that nobody would dare swing that hard.". I'd reckon they engage in similar wishful thinking now about future clubhead speed increases.

As to the larger point of where it ends, the answer is that nobody knows. There is some physical limit to how much power and speed a human can produce in swinging a golf club. But only a fool would claim to know where that limit is while the capability of players continues to increase (albeit at a slowing rate of increase).

What the "rollback lobby" is basically asking for is a change in intent on the part of USGA/R&A. The current intent seems to be "make sure that future golf balls do not perform any better than today's golf balls". The alternative being proposed is "As players get stronger and better, continually decrease the performance of the golf ball so that stronger and better players are unable to hit it farther than their weaker predecessors". If you really want Justin Rose to be playing Merion in a club-for-club, shot-for-shot, yardage-for-yardage duplication of how it was played in 1950 then you're asking for a monstrous huge "rollback". Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing. To "rollback" his results to even roughly match those of Hogan is the equivalent of putting an 120-pound shot bag on a racehorse.

Then my questions become:

Why is the exact way in which certain tournaments are contested on certain historic courses more important than the rest of the Game of GolfI

Is four weeks a year of Major Championship golf really sufficient justification for throttling back the natural and inexorable progress of player capabilities throughout the game?

Failing that, are those four weeks a year sufficient reason to break with hundreds of years of precedent that "Golf" is a game played by one set of Rules from the lowliest hacker to the most elite championships?

I think refusing to accept that ether

a) Merion must be choked with rough and tricked up in numerous ways to "protect par" or
b) scores in a US Open at Merion will be far lower than those from half a century or more ago

is a perfectly understandable response from those enamored of History and What It All Means mumbo-jumbo that gets applied to certain tournaments. But the consequences of forcing the game into a third option are not to be dismissed lightly.

[Ted Sturges]

Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What is your proof for making this statement?

TS

[Brent Hutto]

Because he does. Believe otherwise if you wish.

[JESII]

Ted,

I don't label anybody as being in the rollback world, I leave it simply to those responding to the question...

Seriously, wouldn't the easiest thing be to just leave the courses alone and let the players shoot lower scores?

Least expensive, least controversial, most unified way of moving forward...

But if we do nothing...where does it end?

If one were to graph the tour pro distance increases the last 30 years alone (I haven't done this but would be curious to see the results of anyone who has), in another 20 years they'll be hitting 450 yard drives and 250 yard 7 irons.  There won't be any courses in existence today that would have a prayer at defending par.  Do you really think that makes sense?  How many new courses are we going to have to build?  That approach will render hundreds of wonderful courses in existence today obsolete.

TS

Ted,

If you ran a golf course, what would you do?

[Ted Sturges]

To Jim S:

I don't think it makes any difference what I would do if I ran/owned a golf course.  What matters is what would I do if I were a member of the USGA Executive Committee (disclosure, I was a USGA Committeeman for 13 years).

My comments above state clearly what I would do if in that role.  Different standards for "tournament golf" vs. recreational golf.  The governing bodies need to attract more people to the game...not run them off.  For example, the anchoring issue has the potential to drive some people away from the game.  Having a standard "tour ball", and tour specs for clubs is a pretty simple solution in my opinon.

TS

[JESII]

Ted,

I am firmly in the camp that this is a course-by-course decision, that's why I asked what you would do if you ran a club.

I don't buy the logic that just becaue Dustin Johnson can hit it 320, I need to have a 7500 yard course...I think it's an idiotic line of thinking.

I don't care what the PGA Tour does to TPC @ Wherever to present a challenge to these guys...they're putting on a show, they're not playing golf.

How does the fact that Dustin Johnson would make your course defenseless/obsolete directly impact your life? It doesn't until your club decides to renovate the course to make it more difficult/protect par. Idiotic logic. Maybe he'll show up next year so we better do something...

The comparison to other sports is valid here...what would LeBron do in a backyard pick up game? Nobody would have fun so why should we worry about him when we build the court?

I think strictly bifurcating equipment is a horrendous idea.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim,

As a course owner or someone building a course you'd be right of course to completely ignore floggers.

But jeez the spread between golfers has gotten huge, even if you ignore the next class down from floggers, the pre-floggers (male D1 golfers).

It seems like tees are getting built all over the place and the back tees at many courses now extend beyond 7,200 yards. In fact I bet when the day comes that we play together you have to move at least one and probably two tees back if we were to attempt a "real" game.

Anyway, there already is bifurcation of equipment between floggers and golfers: the only thing their equipment has in common with ours is the label stamped on it. (And as you know, sometimes that label or headcover does not correspond to the club.) Not just the I&B strictly differs, either: it is "optimized" to the flogger to a degree that's impossible for golfers to receive.

[JESII]

But Mark...who cares...you and I will play, we'll agree on terms on the first tee and when you beat my ass I'll negotiate better in the afternoon.

IT"S GOLF!

Why on earth should Ted's course prepare for the day Dustin Johnson decides to show up?

What percentage of golfers in the world are actually capable of making a course look useless? Any course...

I'll guess 0.01%.

I could probably shoot par on a great course if I played a handful of rounds in preparation...does that mean the course needs to be renovated? Could 2% of golfers do that? Think about the numbers...this is a ridiculous conversation that has more legs here, and on Shack's site, than I can believe..

Each golf course needs to take responsibility for itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What is your proof for making this statement?

The distance the ball travels

TS

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim,

In spirit I too am all for bifurcation of golf courses but there are two problems with that approach:

1. When the powers that be attempt to "overlay" a flogger course on a golf course, the changes they make often hurt the course that golfers play. Putting in flogger tees and speeding up the greens don't affect the golfers' course but tightening landing areas, flattening greens, narrowing mowing lines: many changes that are done to host flogger tournaments change the golfers' course. The needs of 150 individuals are given precedence over golfers.

2. Even the golfers' course has changed as golfers play a game that is more flog-like in nature. In 2011 I played the Yale course for the first time since 1999. The whites used to be plenty for me off the tee yet in 2011 I found the course far shorter. The blues became the new whites. Looking at the aerials posted on Golf Course Histories comparing courses across the decades, the most striking change to my eyes is the narrowing of fairways. These old courses have gotten longer yet narrower. Why do you suppose that is?

Meanwhile, because golfers vary in their ability to unlock the charms of the new I&B now we have a million tees planted on golf courses.

[Ted Sturges]

Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What is your proof for making this statement?

The distance the ball travels

TS

I wasn't aware that The Wee Ice Mon played ProV1's...    Hint:  His ball might have traveled farther if he had played today's ball (just a guess).

[Ted Sturges]

Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What is your proof for making this statement?

The distance the ball travels

Besides the fact that the player's of Hogan's era would no doubt hit longer golf shots with today's equipment and golf balls, I want to further inquire as to what a "more technically optimized swing" is.

I don't know what that statement means, but if my choice is Justin Rose's swing or Hogan's, I choose Hogan's 100 times out of 100.  To me, he possessed the most efficient, simple, elegant, and effective golf swing in the history of the game.  Would that qualify it for "technically optimized"?

TS

I wasn't aware that The Wee Ice Mon played ProV1's...    Hint:  His ball might have traveled farther if he had played today's ball (just a guess).

[Mac Plumart]

Pfft...

Hogan's shots didn't go anywhere near as far as the modern players.  Therefore, the modern players must have a swing that is WAY better than Hogan's.


Right?

 


And don't give me the today's guys are "bigger and stronger" argument.  Mickey Mantle's 660 foot home run is still the farthest one ever hit and that happened in 1961.  Hogan played golf close to that era.  Therefore, he must not have been good enough to hang with our current crop of PGA Pros.  

After all, golf and baseball have lots of things in common.  Both are stick and ball games.  If they hit the baseball further (or just as far) back in Mickey Mantle's day, then we should expect the older golfer's numbers to be just as comparable as the modern era guys.  Right?

[Jim Nugent]

 Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What exactly is a "technically optimized swing?"

[Brent Hutto]

 Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What exactly is a "technically optimized swing?"

I mean that 50 years and more have passed since Hogan's day. Justin Rose doesn't have to dig anything out of the dirt. He can take advantage of everything Hogan learned, everything learned by everyone who has studied Hogan, everything learned by everyone studying under those who studied Hogan. He can adopt any elements of Hogan's technique that work for him and can add to them everything that has been developing in the ensuing half century.

And to top it all off, he can try different things and have instant feedback on exactly anything he tries affects the flight of the golf ball. No trial and error, no reinventing the wheel. In developing his swing Justin Rose stands on the shoulders of the giants that came before him. If you do not think that anything Hogan did with his swing can possibly be improved on, that's just old fart wishful thinking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What is your proof for making this statement?

The distance the ball travels

TS

I wasn't aware that The Wee Ice Mon played ProV1's...    Hint:  His ball might have traveled farther if he had played today's ball (just a guess).

Ted,

The modern swing, with the right elbow disconnected from the body, produces a much larger arc.

As Archimedes stated, "give me a lever......

Hogan could hit ProV1's to his heart's content and it wouldn't make any difference.

Swing speeds of 120 were unheard of with a heavy headed, 43 inch  persimmon driver with a steel shaft.

Didn't Hogan have a flat swing and a consistent fade ?

[Jim Nugent]

I'm no student of the swing.  But I'm not sure that Hogan's swing can be improved on... for the equipment Hogan used. 

The players today have built their swings around today's equipment.  I'm pretty sure they would flounder with Hogan's equipment.  In fact an experiment several years ago showed how true that is. 

Brandt Snedeker played a round with clubs from the 1980s.  He was lost.  He hit lots of 230 yard drives.  He didn't know which way the ball was going, or how how many scores of yards off-line it would go. 

Snedeker shot 80, on a sub-6700 yard course, and that was with a red-hot putter.  "On the toughest new courses, where you have to fly the ball 200 yards over water or unplayable areas, I might not break 90, 100 with the old equipment," Snedeker remarked. 

Some highlights from the article, which appeared in USA Today:

"There was a 25-30 yard difference between drivers, 40-50 yards when he mis-hit the old driver. Mis-hits with his current equipment meant off-line landings of 5-10 yards; with the old clubs, as much as 50 yards off-line."

"I don't know how to explain the sound" at impact with the old clubs and ball, Snedeker said. "It feels like the ball is getting stuck on the clubface. The old ball feels so soft, like a marshmallow."

"I truly appreciate growing up in the generation that I did," Snedeker says, "because I don't think I would have grown up to be a pro golfer if I had to have played with the old stuff. It is so much different, so much tougher."

"It makes me really appreciate the guys that came before me," Snedeker says of hitting the old clubs. "The way Bobby Jones played golf, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Ben Hogan, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller. Those guys were phenomenal.

"They had to be unbelievable ball strikers to hit the ball straight and as solid as they did."

In the same article, Lee Trevino says that if his generation of pro golfers had competed with today's advanced equipment: "The golf courses would have been too short."

"If we had (the new) golf ball in my day," Trevino says, "the best of us would have hit it 300 yards and Jack Nicklaus would have hit it 360."

"I'm seeing parts of this golf course I've never seen before," Snedeker said on the 12th hole. "I'm trying everything to keep the old driver on this planet."

"The biggest difference is the new ball doesn't curve as much anymore," Snedeker says. "It was a more precise game back then. The ball was spinning so much more, and it was so much harder to control vs. today's golf ball. The ball wanted to curve 20, 30, 40 yards.

"That's why you see guys hit the ball so much farther now, because we can go at it so much harder than they were able to do so back then. Back in the '60s and '70s and '80s, you couldn't go at it full bore because you could literally hit it 30, 40 yards off line.

"Every pro on the Tour, the biggest fear is hitting a low draw or snap hook," Snedeker adds. "Now the equipment is set up today where the ball won't spin enough to hit that draw. I have no fear. I really saw that today."

Look at the distances the Champions Tour players hit the ball now, compared to when they played the regular tour.  I think they have gained 20 to 30 yards on average.  Equipment is the reason.  As Snedeker said, it lets them go after the ball so much harder.  Of course, his swing is more tailored to this equipment, so he gets even more out of it. 

I'm sure Rose generates more club speed.  But I also believe that's more equipment-related than swing.  Why did John Huston average 263.4 yards in 1989, but now as a senior tour player, is averaging 295.2 yards? 

It's not true that there is always progress.  In sports like track & field, there's been only minimal improvement for decades.  And even that may be more drug-related than anything else. 

[Brent Hutto]

Well of course a 12-year-old Justin Rose did not set out to learn his swing with anything other than modern ball and equipment. Ben Hogan wasn't out there learning a swing suited to Bobby Jones hickories and Bobby Jones wasn't using a swing developed for featheries.

Neither have I claimed that modern players don't have an easier task than the guys who played at an elite level with shitty old clubs and balls. I'll stipulated that it took a Real He-Man With Balls Of Steel to play golf back in the day while mere wimps and milquetoasts are capable of playing today. Fine.

And I did not claim that todays ball does not fly father and straighter than the ball did back then.

My two claims are that a) Justin Rose can produce more power and clubhead speed than Ben Hogan was capable of and b) Justin Rose's swing is technically superior to Hogan's. Both of those facts are obvious and are not rendered false by the additional fact that modern equipment has higher performance.

The implication of those two points is clear. It's fine to want to force Justin Rose to start playing with equipment that is inferior in performance to the modern stuff. But if you want a modern player's results to match those of Hogan on the same course under the same conditions, you'll have to go much farther than that. Because then you'll need to eliminate both the modern ball/club performance AND the fact that modern players are stronger, more flexible, fitter and just plain old capable of producing a more powerful swing than Hogan.

And given enough time, all the advantages of modern coaching and training will find a technically optimized way to hit your rolled back ball. Maybe it won't be today's players (if you were to change the ball spec massively) but the next generation who grew up playing your rolled back ball will have figured out a way to get the maximum performance from it.

In which case presumably you lot would be arguing for a further rollback 20 years from now. Just keep in mind to get a Hogan-like US Open played at Merion, we're not talking some piddling 10-15% ODS decrease or screwing around with spin rates. We're talking about something far, far lower in performance than a wound Titleist Professional and probably something lower in performance than a 80's vintage Titleist Tour Balata.

[Mac Plumart]

I'm not sure that Hogan's swing can be improved on... for the equipment Hogan used.

Yep.  Yep.

Isn't that the point?  The stronger and faster argument doesn't seem to hold water.  It is all technology.  Mantle still holds the longest home run record (set in 1961).  The 100 yard dash world-record was 10.5 in 1870 and is now 9.07.  A 15.5% improvement in 143 years!!!!!  While the 100 meter time has improved from 9.91 in 1964 to its current record of 9.58 now.  A 3.3% increase over almost 50 years.

[Ted Sturges]

Justin Rose produces significantly more clubhead speed with a more technically optimized swing than Ben Hogan was capable of doing.

What is your proof for making this statement?

The distance the ball travels

TS

I wasn't aware that The Wee Ice Mon played ProV1's...    Hint:  His ball might have traveled farther if he had played today's ball (just a guess).

Ted,

The modern swing, with the right elbow disconnected from the body, produces a much larger arc.

As Archimedes stated, "give me a lever......

Hogan could hit ProV1's to his heart's content and it wouldn't make any difference.

Swing speeds of 120 were unheard of with a heavy headed, 43 inch  persimmon driver with a steel shaft.

Didn't Hogan have a flat swing and a consistent fade ?

C'mon Pat...it's all physics.  The ball will travel longer in the air the faster the swing speed is.  You are correct in that Hogan used heavier clubs than Justin Rose uses today.  But...Hogan would have produced a much higher swing speed with today's clubs...and today's golf ball is what it is as well (compared to the balatas Hogan used).  To say that Hogan could hit ProV1's to his heart's content and think it wouldn't have made any difference is just silly.

And to Brett Hutto:

Please enlighten all of us on what you would specifically change in Hogan's swing to improve on it (this ought to be good). 

TS

[john_stiles]

Good heavens.   The ball could certainly be rolled back. 

Back in the day of bifuricated ball allowances,  the US professionals used to play the small ball for the Open, for a week or two, and win.

The rolled back ball would be required for the Tour, etc. Soon the top ams would be playing it and it would trickle down to the rest.

Need to end the constant course work of creating new tees, bunkers, and greens.

The USGA will never manufacture a ball or club.

So the USGA will always be behind the manufacturers.

The manufacturers are spending money on developing new materials, trying new shell and dimples,  new cores, new cover materials, ad infinitum.  Do you really think that when they find something that makes a ball, or club, or combo of club/ball make  the ball go further that they are really going to say  "  Hey, USGA, I found something here.  It meets the B&I rules  but is it okay to make  since it goes 5 yards further ?  "

[Brent Hutto]

And to Brett Hutto:

Please enlighten all of us on what you would specifically change in Hogan's swing to improve on it (this ought to be good). 

TS

No idea. I'm not a swing teacher.

I also don't know why my Honda Civic produces more horsepower than Chevy Nova did in the 70's. But it does.

And I don't know why a college kid can throw a slider with more velocity than Bob Gibson could throw fastball. But he does.

I really can't imagine any reason other than petty argumentation for its own sake that you'd posit the notion that zero improvements have been made in how to swing a golf club since Ben Hogan's day. Just how far back does perfection run in your alternate reality field? Was Young Tom Morris's swing also just as good as Hogan's?

You guys keep saying The Ball The Clubs The Ball The Club BLAH BLAH F---ING BLAH. Well OK I'm with you. The equipment and balls today produce a lot of distance.

That doesn't change the fact that golfers today are also stronger, produce more clubhead speed and have benefitted from half a century of study and incremental improvement in swing mechanics since Ben Hogan was learning the game. And don't give me that nonsense about lighter drivers. Bubba Watson can swing a sand wedge 30-40mph faster than Ben Hogan could swing a sand wedge. Hand him Ben Hogan's wedge and he'll still swing it faster because he's stronger and faster.

So as John Stiles says, of course the ball can be rolled back. Technically it's an almost trivial thing, just the politics and money stand in the way. But if the wet dream of a rollback were to occur, just don't expect it will lead to the 2033 US Open being played by a bunch of guys bunting the ball around Hogan-esque distances. The ball has changed for the longer...but everything else in the game has changed for the longer at that same time. And you can't roll back fitness and swing mechanics.