[JESII]

One other are often mentioned is that courses are becoming "obsolete" and I disagree with that...see my questions to Pat M about the number of people breaking par at his course.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Unless I'm mistaken, this conversation is about equipment and equipment regulations. The reason it's a worthwhile discussion is that people think great architecture is being ruined or the game is becoming too big which leads to too expensive and time consuming for people to play. Some people think both are major issues. I agree with both of those concerns but disagree with your single minded approach of trying to artificially take yardage away from Dustin Johnson, and his ilk, to save the game. You're misguided.

You brought Shackelford into this, I didn't. Happy to let you take him out of it. Which book should I read?

My "single minded approach?"  To the contrary, I am all for any approach that might help, including trying to convince these courses/owners/developers/clubs not to foolishly chase after the technology which (IMO) hasn't really helped the average golfer all that much. That is part of why I focus on the difference in benefits between the big hitters and the small hitters-- to try and convince others that the old courses really aren't too short for most golfers, and that it wouldn't make sense to bastardize a design for the sake of a few big hitters.  

It is also misleading for you to state that I want to "artificially" take yardage away from anyone.  Golf is a game played with implements and those implements have always been regulated. According to the ball manufacturers, they could easily manufacturer balls which exceeded the rules.  Are those rules "artificially" taking distance away from Johnson, too?  The rules define the game and they are supposed to protect the game.  Changing the rules would be merely a matter of trying to actually accomplish what they set out to accomplish in the first place.

As for Shackelford, I offered his name in humor to point out that some have been willing to "blame the clubs."  I surely wasn't volunteering to summarize his books for you, nor do I think that would be productive given your stated hostility toward him.

[Garland Bayley]

One other are often mentioned is that courses are becoming "obsolete" and I disagree with that...see my questions to Pat M about the number of people breaking par at his course.

Breaking par may have nothing to do with "obsolete".
The Tee it Forward program set out guidelines that would have golfers hitting wedge approaches to half of the par 4s. They are making the game obsolete by redefining how you should go about it.

Clearly few people will break par at Pat's course. The game is not only comprised of driving it long. You still have to be able to chip and putt to score well. If you want to know whether the course is obsolete, then ask how many long iron approaches are made on par 4s. If there is a significant number of players that don't need to make long iron approaches, then the course is obsolete.

[Garland Bayley]

...but disagree with your single minded approach of trying to artificially take yardage away from Dustin Johnson, and his ilk...

This is just plain wrong. Dustin Johnson, and his ilk have artificially been given extra yardage!

Yes, I'm shouting at you.
 

[JESII]

Hostility David? Get a grip.



Garland,

If nothing else, this thread has proven to me that what you've said there is clearly not true.

[DMoriarty]

I'd say accusing him of bashing every move the USGA makes is pretty hostile.  Perhaps you are the one who needs to get a grip.

I am not defending Geoff.  He is more than capable of defending himself.   But I don't see the point in getting into a discussion about him when obviously your opinions are already formed.  

[DMoriarty]

If nothing else, this thread has proven to me that what you've said there is clearly not true.

Really?  

I thought you agreed that a combination of the technological advancements in the ball, shaft, club head, and optimization has lead to substantial increases in driving distance by the top golfers.

What is the evidence that these technological advancements have lead to similar increases in driving distance by average golfers? How does the magnitude of the respective changes compare?  

I must have missed the part of this thread where anyone offered anything remotely factual showing or even suggesting that average golfers have benefitted from the technology as much as top golfers.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

If nothing else, this thread has proven to me that what you've said there is clearly not true.

What? You're not going to tell me he hits it so far, because he works out are you?

Let him play in Jack's era with Jacks equipment, and he hits it no better than Jack. The rules and regulatory organizations have not prevented technology from handing him a huge artificial increase over Jack's era. The fact that science can change the performance of the implements artificially hands him his extra distance. Major league baseball players get no extra distance from their wooden bats through technology. They get no extra distance from the ball through technology. We aren't building larger baseball fields to accommodate the elite baseball players.

So how is what I've said not true?

Are we not discussing golf courses becoming obsolete for players like Dustin?

[JESII]

Longer, lighter shafts with hotter club faces enable everyone to increase their Miriam ball speed. Optimization has enabled everyone to figure out how to best utilize that ball speed. These are undeniable physical facts.

The ball is absolutely a significant factor in distance increases as well... not sure what portion I could allot to it.

Unfortunately David, potential is vital in this conversation. How could you measure a solid drive by a top Ayer versus a smother hook by an 18 handicap and make any judgement about the equipment helping the better player disproportionately more? This is what you dismissed earlier in the thread.

[Garland Bayley]

Longer, lighter shafts with hotter club faces enable everyone to increase their Miriam ball speed. Optimization has enabled everyone to figure out how to best utilize that ball speed. These are undeniable physical facts.
...

This is absolutely not true. Longer, lighter shafts simply make the average player hit it worse than he did before. The average player knows that optimization only optimizes the shots he hits at least near the screws, so it is for all intents and purposes absolutely worthless to him.

These are undeniable facts.

This reminds me of 9 handicapper friend that showed me his new driver as I was on the first tee, and he was coming off 9. It of course was 460 cc and it had four clear ball impression marks on it. The were so far apart that probably only one of them would have found the face of a persimmon driver.

[Brent Hutto]

This is absolutely not true. Longer, lighter shafts simply make the average player hit it worse than he did before. The average player knows that optimization only optimizes the shots he hits at least near the screws, so it is for all intents and purposes absolutely worthless to him.

These are undeniable facts.

"Undeniable" because a) Tom Wishon wrote it in a book you bought and b) you happen to personally prefer short drivers.

[DMoriarty]

All very interesting Jim, but I've seen no evidence that the stuff you mention actually helps an average golfer.  I don't know why you are talking about duck hooks and potential. I am just asking you to make your case using evidence.  Restating your hypothesis doesn't do that, does it?  Since this thread has you so convinced, please show me specifically in yardage terms what benefits the average golfer has attained by all this technology, and show me how that compares to the gains attained by the elite player.  

Or, to make it simpler for you . . .

What is your evidence that the technological advancements have lead to similar distance increases on a well struck drive hit by a golfer swinging at 80-85 mph as compared to a well struck drive hit by an elite player swinging at 120-125 mph?

[Brent Hutto]

I own a Macgregor persimmon driver from 1951. Dynamic steel shaft, still with the original grips. Pretty much immaculate condition.

I own a 2013 Ping G25 driver and 4-wood. Stock graphite shaft.

Does the new driver hit it longer? Yep. Higher? Yep. Straighter? Oh hell yes. Better result on a bad swing? You bet. Easier to swing 14 times a round without feeling like I'm trying to swing a sledgehammer? Of course.

I'm 53 years old, six feet, 220 pounds, play golf at weekends and my handicap index is 16.5 which I believe is almost the very definition of an average golfer. The newer equipment is clearly, obviously and in every way possible an advantage to my game.

And don't even get me started on the 1951 blades versus my Ping irons...

[Garland Bayley]

This is absolutely not true. Longer, lighter shafts simply make the average player hit it worse than he did before. The average player knows that optimization only optimizes the shots he hits at least near the screws, so it is for all intents and purposes absolutely worthless to him.

These are undeniable facts.

"Undeniable" because a) Tom Wishon wrote it in a book you bought and b) you happen to personally prefer short drivers.

Because the average golfer misses the sweet spot. Now put a longer shaft in his hands. Geometry says that miss will be larger.
If he does not miss the sweet spot, he will not be an average golfer.

[Garland Bayley]

I own a Macgregor persimmon driver from 1951. Dynamic steel shaft, still with the original grips. Pretty much immaculate condition.

I own a 2013 Ping G25 driver and 4-wood. Stock graphite shaft.

Does the new driver hit it longer? Yep. Higher? Yep. Straighter? Oh hell yes. Better result on a bad swing? You bet. Easier to swing 14 times a round without feeling like I'm trying to swing a sledgehammer? Of course.

I'm 53 years old, six feet, 220 pounds, play golf at weekends and my handicap index is 16.5 which I believe is almost the very definition of an average golfer. The newer equipment is clearly, obviously and in every way possible an advantage to my game.

And don't even get me started on the 1951 blades versus my Ping irons...

Brent,

Neither of us are average golfers. The average golfer is the guy that the R&A found gained 3 yards with his driver, while Dustin gained 30.

[DMoriarty]

Brent.  Respectfully. Your results are what Jim Sullivan would call a "cornfield" test.  He doesn't care about cornfield tests.

But I am curious . . .  Do you consistently hit the ball 30 yards further than you did in 1996?  My own person cornfield test tells me that I sure as hell don't. 

[Brent Hutto]

In 1996 I had been playing golf two years, had never broke 100, did not own a driver per se and was completely SOL if faced with a forced carry of 120 yards. So I can't offer any meaningful answer to that question.

I do have a 90's vintage first generation Titleist PT driver. Stainless steel with graphite shaft. It is lighter and easier to swing than the persimmon and gets the ball a touch higher. Unlike the the persimmon I can not turn it over for a running draw. Just slices, every time. Brutal.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks anyway Brent. 

Perhaps we can speak generally about someone of your current abilities, since you see yourself as an average golfer.  You have mentioned in the past that your drives fairly consistently measure 195-200 yards.  In 1996, do you think that a golfer your ability was only driving the ball 165-170 yards?

How about you Jim?  Take a golfer that currently drives the ball around 195-200 yards.  What are the odds that this same golfer was only driving the ball 165-170 yards in 1996?

Does anyone know a slow swing golfer who has gained 30 yards off the tee since 1996?  Does anyone know a golfer who has increased their driving distance from 160-170 yards to 190-200 yards? 

[Garland Bayley]

In 1996 I had been playing golf two years, had never broke 100, did not own a driver per se and was completely SOL if faced with a forced carry of 120 yards. So I can't offer any meaningful answer to that question.

I do have a 90's vintage first generation Titleist PT driver. Stainless steel with graphite shaft. It is lighter and easier to swing than the persimmon and gets the ball a touch higher. Unlike the the persimmon I can not turn it over for a running draw. Just slices, every time. Brutal.

I'm confused. What driver are you using now? And, what driver enables you to do the 120 yard carry? And, are you wanting a slice, or a running draw? And, which carries farther in the air, the slice or the running draw?

[Brent Hutto]

Honest to goodness, I could not hit that 1992(ish) vintage Titleist Pro Trajectory driver 170 yards in the air right now, today, if you gave me ten tries for a million bucks. My carry distance is typically around 180 and I'll occasionally get one that's 10 yards farther than that.

So I'd say mid-1990's drivers versus mid-2010's drivers are worth about 15-20 yards of carry distance to me with my current game. Plus a lot straighter and about half as many out and out duffed shots.

Back then I was playing a DDH-II distance ball that would not stop on a firm green with any club I had. Even with a short iron I had to land it just short of the green and run it up. I now play a ProV1 type ball that will stop within 5-10 feet of where it lands on a firm green even when struck with a 6-iron. Yet it goes just as far as any distance ball for me.

So in every way the equipment available is 2014 makes for a noticeably, markedly better golf experience than the equipment available when I started in 1994. There's more to golf than how far you hit the driver. But yeah, I'll take the extra 15 yards too.

[Brent Hutto]

In 1996 I had been playing golf two years, had never broke 100, did not own a driver per se and was completely SOL if faced with a forced carry of 120 yards. So I can't offer any meaningful answer to that question.

I do have a 90's vintage first generation Titleist PT driver. Stainless steel with graphite shaft. It is lighter and easier to swing than the persimmon and gets the ball a touch higher. Unlike the the persimmon I can not turn it over for a running draw. Just slices, every time. Brutal.

I'm confused. What driver are you using now? And, what driver enables you to do the 120 yard carry? And, are you wanting a slice, or a running draw? And, which carries farther in the air, the slice or the running draw?

I use a Ping G25 driver now. I can now hit it over, let's say, 150-160 yards of water before I start getting nervous.

Dave asked me about my play in 1996 and I was simply pointing out that I basically couldn't play a normal game of golf because I was a beginner.

Neither the 1951 persimmon or the 1992 stainless steel driver carries far enough in the air to count on for a forced carry. If I had one fo those clubs in my bag and were standing on a tee overlooking 150 yards of water I would simply take the ball and drop it on the other side rather than waste it. Fortunately, I use the modern Ping driver.

[Garland Bayley]

Brent,

It sounds to me that you are not talking about equipment, but fitting. I had a 460 cc driver that all I could hit with it were weak slices. Since an aging person like myself has trouble getting a 3 wood up off the fairway, I don't carry one in my bag. I eventually took the driver out of the bag and put a 3 wood in for tee shots. Problem solved. I hit the 3 wood much farther than that driver.

That said, I have a range of sizes of drivers, because I buy clubs and shafts at clearance prices and can build drivers for around $30. I have another 460 cc driver head that works quite well for me. I have built two with it on different shafts, and have a third one yet to be built. At $9.95 for driver head, I can afford a few.

As a final note, I plan to take that three wood to BUDA with me and eschew the driver, as I have much more confidence in it.

[DMoriarty]

Brent,

Your numbers sound awful high to me, but even if we accept them they pale in comparison to the gain experienced by elite players.

And you are talking about carry, but from you description of the roll sounds like total distance would be less of a difference.

As Garland suggested, perhaps the PT club wasn't best for you.  I tried one of those back then and it was well beyond my ability to hit it.  

[JESII]

David,

What do you think about the fact that I'm no longer than 15 or 20 years ago?

[Brent Hutto]

None of my ancient clubs suit me. That's why they come out of the closet a handful of times a year and I play my other 100+ rounds with modern equipment that does suit me.

But 20 years ago I did not have the option of a "Tour" ball that was playable by slow-swinging amateurs, or a driver that "fits" slow-swinging amateurs or any of the other niceties that the industry provides me now. Honestly, if Dustin Johnson started hitting it 200 yards farther than he does now I'd have a hard time mustering more than a passing interest.

I get the impression you would gladly play with one hand behind your back, using gutta percha and hickory if that could force Dustin Johnson to hit the ball 50 yards shorter. I'm not willing to give up anything to affect Dustin Johnson one way or another.

I guess that means for me something has actually come out of this endless discussion. I used to say if some "rollback" or another happened it's all good because I'd just play the "rolled back" stuff and get used to it. Now that I realized how bloody-minded the motivation behind all this talk truly is, screw it. I want my G25 and I want my urethane golf ball. Let Dustin Johnson do what he likes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()