[BCrosby]

A good read. The piece compares playing old and new clubs/balls and why the old clubs/balls were more fun and made the course architecture relevant again:

http://www.golfwrx.com/477002/match-of-the-ages-30-years-of-tech-goes-head-to-head/


Bob

[jeffwarne]

Great article
What sometimes is a noncontrollable variable is the fact that such experiements are often using 20-30 year old balls, which don't age well. So a balata ball may well have performed better when new. That said, the Professional was a pretty hot ball for its time, and a definite improvement over the previous generation, so maybe an old Professional equals a new "balata" from 1988.


I was listening to Carl and Dennis Paulson last week who were waxing poetically about Palmetto and playing it with persimmon and balata balls. Two former Tour players hitting 4-5 irons into 400 yard par 4's that the kids there now hit flip L wedges to.
There was pure joy in their voices as they described working the ball, hitting low releasers, spinny shots etc.
Again, I think the balls they had were old as the holes sounded like the played longer than when I grew up there with balatas.


Imagine that, a course two experts could play from the tips (6700 yards if using the hidden tess, but really 6400) and be challenged to the hilt and the average guy had choices up to 5000 yards.less walking, more interest, more skill for those who choose it.


A world where Merion is relevant (saving 15 million) Shinnecock is a beast and we don't have to watch 6 hour rounds at Chambers Bay or build 9 mile walks like Erin Hills.And pros have to hit shots, not just play smashball. Especially in the wind.


AAhh but who would profit if we went sustainable....


Common sense ain't so common...


Glad to hear Tiger joining the rant...the movement is growing to bifurcate or rollback

[BCowan]

Great article
What sometimes is a noncontrollable variable is the fact that such experiements are often using 20-30 year old balls, which don't age well. So a balata ball may well have performed better when new. That said, the Professional was a pretty hot ball for its time, and a definite improvement over the previous generation, so maybe an old Professional equals a new "balata" from 1988.


I was listening to Carl and Dennis Paulson last week who were waxing poetically about Palmetto and playing it with persimmon and balata balls. Two former Tour players hitting 4-5 irons into 400 yard par 4's that the kids there now hit flip L wedges to.
There was pure joy in their voices as they described working the ball, hitting low releasers, spinny shots etc.
Again, I think the balls they had were old as the holes sounded like the played longer than when I grew up there with balatas.


Imagine that, a course two experts could play from the tips (6700 yards if using the hidden tess, but really 6400) and be challenged to the hilt and the average guy had choices up to 5000 yards.less walking, more interest, more skill for those who choose it.


A world where Merion is relevant (saving 15 million) Shinnecock is a beast and we don't have to watch 6 hour rounds at Chambers Bay or build 9 mile walks like Erin Hills.And pros have to hit shots, not just play smashball. Especially in the wind.


AAhh but who would profit if we went sustainable....


Common sense ain't so common...


Glad to hear Tiger joining the rant...the movement is growing to bifurcate or rollback

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59328.msg1396264.html#msg1396264


Tiger like Bob Jones holds the key.  Tiger has his own tourney every year.  He needs to make a Persimmons/tour professional ball tourney and host it at Seminole or Streamsong preferably.  Pro's feel obligated to support Tiger due to him raising the purse levels and respect for his accomplishments.  Tiger holds one of the keys to voluntarily getting more private events with different wrenches.   


PS- Stop railing against profits, you sound like a pinko. 

[BCrosby]

Jeff -


I had the same thought about using a 'Professional' ball from the mid-90's. If they had used an older balata from the 70's or 80's, the distance gaps would have been larger.


To make the point again, do the math. For modern courses to play like a 7,000 yard course did in 1980, the modern course needs to be about 8,400 yards.


A modern 7,400 yard course, on an apples to apples basis, is very, very short. It plays something like a 6.500 yard course did in 1980, which everyone in 1980 would have said was too short for a tour event.


Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

I played 30 years ago and it was fun. I also continued to buy the new clubs and balls offered without ever thinking they were taking the fun out of the game.


I just completed five consecutive rounds at Victoria National with the same ball. An almost impossible feat on many levels. In 87 it was rare to finish a single round on any course with professional quality ball. The relative price of golf balls has gone down since 87.


I would also say that modern equipment has closed the gap between the wealthy and working class golfer. The modern club is so good that everyone is playing the same quality of equipment thus making the game more equitable than in 87.


While it's fun to wax nostalgic, golf has never been better for everyone with the possible exception of those elite of talent and finance.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Bob - good article, good posts.
Besides the affect/impact on golf in general, there is also the personal experience of the game.
I've never seen, for my tastes, a prettier iron than my 1984 Walter Hagen Haig Ultras (Contour Sole) - with the drill- through head and the red plug, just like the old Wilson Staffs
I don't know of a more pleasant sound than that a soft, spinning ball off the face of a Hogan persimmon driver
There are few shots more enjoyable than the ones you have to experiment with, e.g. like using an old 9 iron (which has the loft of today's PW) on a short pitch out of light rough over a bunker to a tight pin by weakening your grip, moving the ball up in your stance, and cutting across it like a bunker shot
There is nothing as satisfying -- especially for an average golfer like me -- as hitting a 4 wood off the fairway and managing to draw it/fade it towards the opening in the green 210 yards away
When you make a putt with an old Bullseye putter, you really feel that *you* made the putt
When you watch your ball from the tee shoot off straight as an arrow and rise up to its highest point and then drop and roll along the centre of the fairway to the 150 yard marker, you know that you really hit a *golf shot*     
I occasionally play with my more modern set; the game is made easier, no doubt, and there is fun in scoring well. But the toaster- over driver heads and cavity-backed shovel irons are very ugly in comparison; the clanking tinny sounds are very unpleasant; the contortions necessary (for me) in trying to hit a draw or a fade are painful on my back; and most of all, the artificial and 'temporary' feel of all the equipment disconnects me from the history of the game and makes me vaguely depressed -- in 30 years can you imagine anyone waxing as poetically about the latest hollow-headed driver that seems destined for the garbage dump 6 months after you bought it as they do a Wood Brothers of MacGregor Eye-O-Matic?
Peter
(PS - JK makes a good point)       

[BCowan]

''I occasionally play with my more modern set; the game is made easier, no doubt, and there is fun in scoring well. But the toaster- over driver heads and cavity-backed shovel irons are very ugly in comparison; the clanking tinny sounds are very unpleasant; the contortions necessary (for me) in trying to hit a draw or a fade are painful on my back; and most of all, the artificial and 'temporary' feel of all the equipment disconnects me from the history of the game and makes me vaguely depressed''

Peter, excellent.  I enjoyed this part the most but it was all good.   

[jeffwarne]

I would also say that modern equipment has closed the gap between the wealthy and working class golfer. The modern club is so good that everyone is playing the same quality of equipment thus making the game more equitable than in 87.

That's almost funny.
keep believeing the spin at Golf Galaxy.
The working class golfer is spending several days a season with a fitter at a well funded manufacturer armed with Trackman, computer analysis, and multiple high end shafts and heads?
Maybe At a clip of about $900 for a driver with True Spec etc. and even then after it's ordered and assembled if it's not great you're stuck.


In 1985 pros would often pull persimmon heads out of bargain bins, collector's garages or at yard sales.
Granted it was an equally elusive/trial and error process, but at least the "working man" might be able to afford it. Nowadays. the well heeled might find the right clubs with an expensive technical trail and error process-at great expense, ruling out the working guy.

[Tim Gavrich]

Why is it a bad thing that the quality of golf played by the best golfers in the world is less recognizable today than it was 30 years ago?


Shouldn't we want people who've invested tens of thousands of hours more than we have in cultivating their golf games to be able to astonish us with their ability?


The depression country club golfers feel over young pros outdriving them by 40 yards is maybe 10% equipment, 90% bruised ego.

[Mark Smolens]

40 yards? Tim, you think these guys with modern equipment hit it only 40 yards past us recreational players?? Try 100, or even 125 yards.

Is it stupid that I, as a 60 year old fat out-of-shape recreational player, can hit the ball further than I did when I was 40? To ask the question is to answer it. And the solution is the ball.

I'm/we're not asking Titleist and Callaway and Srixon and Snell and whoever else makes golf balls to stop. Just stop making them so that they'll go so far. Is it bigger, smaller, lighter, heavier, spinnier or less spinny? I have no idea -- I'm a lawyer, not an engineer. But I guarantee you that the ball manufacturers and their engineers could design golf balls that reduce the distance and/or increase the spin (or whatever!) that will allow our current golf courses to not be overpowered by modern clubs and balls, while at the same time allowing the recreational player to enjoy the same game that the best players play.

[MCirba]

Great article
What sometimes is a noncontrollable variable is the fact that such experiements are often using 20-30 year old balls, which don't age well. So a balata ball may well have performed better when new. That said, the Professional was a pretty hot ball for its time, and a definite improvement over the previous generation, so maybe an old Professional equals a new "balata" from 1988.


I was listening to Carl and Dennis Paulson last week who were waxing poetically about Palmetto and playing it with persimmon and balata balls. Two former Tour players hitting 4-5 irons into 400 yard par 4's that the kids there now hit flip L wedges to.
There was pure joy in their voices as they described working the ball, hitting low releasers, spinny shots etc.
Again, I think the balls they had were old as the holes sounded like the played longer than when I grew up there with balatas.


Imagine that, a course two experts could play from the tips (6700 yards if using the hidden tess, but really 6400) and be challenged to the hilt and the average guy had choices up to 5000 yards.less walking, more interest, more skill for those who choose it.


A world where Merion is relevant (saving 15 million) Shinnecock is a beast and we don't have to watch 6 hour rounds at Chambers Bay or build 9 mile walks like Erin Hills.And pros have to hit shots, not just play smashball. Especially in the wind.


AAhh but who would profit if we went sustainable....


Common sense ain't so common...


Glad to hear Tiger joining the rant...the movement is growing to bifurcate or rollback

Well said, Jeff.


I just went on eBay and picked up the same 4 woods that I started the game with...Macgregor Golden Bear vintage 1972 or so.   I've got some old balatas and vintage irons and I'm thinking I'll have some fun next season going retro now and then.

[Buck Wolter]

Great article
What sometimes is a noncontrollable variable is the fact that such experiements are often using 20-30 year old balls, which don't age well. So a balata ball may well have performed better when new. That said, the Professional was a pretty hot ball for its time, and a definite improvement over the previous generation, so maybe an old Professional equals a new "balata" from 1988.


I was listening to Carl and Dennis Paulson last week who were waxing poetically about Palmetto and playing it with persimmon and balata balls. Two former Tour players hitting 4-5 irons into 400 yard par 4's that the kids there now hit flip L wedges to.
There was pure joy in their voices as they described working the ball, hitting low releasers, spinny shots etc.
Again, I think the balls they had were old as the holes sounded like the played longer than when I grew up there with balatas.


Imagine that, a course two experts could play from the tips (6700 yards if using the hidden tess, but really 6400) and be challenged to the hilt and the average guy had choices up to 5000 yards.less walking, more interest, more skill for those who choose it.


A world where Merion is relevant (saving 15 million) Shinnecock is a beast and we don't have to watch 6 hour rounds at Chambers Bay or build 9 mile walks like Erin Hills.And pros have to hit shots, not just play smashball. Especially in the wind.


AAhh but who would profit if we went sustainable....


Common sense ain't so common...


Glad to hear Tiger joining the rant...the movement is growing to bifurcate or rollback

If people here don't listen to Jeff on XM with Jim McLean they are missing out. Epic rant on the ball Monday morning -- left Jim speechless I think.

[Jason Topp]

I think an equipment rollback would be good for the game but would be bad for manufacturers who are not exactly thriving in an era of declining participation.


Manufacturers hit it big when they can sell a technological advance and charge a premium price - such as the Ping Irons, the Great Big Bertha, good graphite shafts or the Pro V1.  One can always expect touring professionals, club professionals, other industry representatives and those who truly prefer to play with modern equipment to form an almost unbeatable force in opposition to such an effort.  The same battle has been going on since the feathery and the forces in favor of premium equipment have consistently been successful.


A similar dynamic exists in many areas where restrictions would greatly interfere with industry profits.  A business has a legal obligation to maximize return for its shareholders and many are very good at using the political processes, public relations and simple persuasion to advance that goal.   


To me the interesting debate is not whether or not reducing the distance players can hit the ball would improve the game - there are arguments on both sides but I believe such a change would ultimately improve the game.   If clubs and balls were brought back to specs from Laz's teenage self, the game would require less land, clubs would be less expensive and rounds would take less time to complete.  All of these factors have been identified as purported causes of declining participation. 


However, all of these effects would create huge risks for manufacturers.  They would only be palatable if they increased participation sufficiently to offset already slim to nonexistent profit margins. 


The more difficult and interesting question is how to deal with the manufacturers who provide much of the financial backing for the game.  A hard line rules change will invite lawsuits, public pressure and the threat of noncompliance (see the ERC).   

[BCowan]

Participation is not declining.  When boomers pass off, it won't be pretty. 

[Jon Wiggett]

I would also say that modern equipment has closed the gap between the wealthy and working class golfer. The modern club is so good that everyone is playing the same quality of equipment thus making the game more equitable than in 87.

That's almost funny.
keep believeing the spin at Golf Galaxy.
The working class golfer is spending several days a season with a fitter at a well funded manufacturer armed with Trackman, computer analysis, and multiple high end shafts and heads?
Maybe At a clip of about $900 for a driver with True Spec etc. and even then after it's ordered and assembled if it's not great you're stuck.


In 1985 pros would often pull persimmon heads out of bargain bins, collector's garages or at yard sales.
Granted it was an equally elusive/trial and error process, but at least the "working man" might be able to afford it. Nowadays. the well heeled might find the right clubs with an expensive technical trail and error process-at great expense, ruling out the working guy.

Spot on Jeff but I suspect this is another of John's subtle jokes. I do not believe anyone with any sort of grasp on reality would think that golf is more affordable now than 30 years ago. The price these days for many things is eye watering but fortunately it is possible to play the game very cheaply or at least here in the UK it is.

Jon

[Niall C]

Isn’t there something ironic about Tiger backing a roll back in equipment since he’s the guy who earned a fortune not only using but endorsing game improvement equipment. IIRC back in the day he even got to use the Pro V several months before even his fellow pro’s.
 
Niall

[BCrosby]

Niall -


I hope Tiger's comments are seen by other pros as laying down a gauntlet, in the sense that they now ought to feel obligated to express an opinion about about what the ball has done to the game. I'm not holding my breath, however. Even at a time when the pros are getting a lot less money from ball manufacturers.


An interesting historical note is that British pros initially opposed the introduction of the Haskell in 1903 (in support of John Low) and later in 1920/21 urged (again, in support of John Low) the introduction of a "floater" ball.


So there is some precedent for pros being on the side of the angels.


Bob 


 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sadly, I think Tiger’s statements will prove counter-productive, much as Jack’s did/have. Because neither of them urged a roll-back in their primes, and because Tiger shrewdly benefited from/took advantage of new technology earlier and to a greater degree than any of his contemporaries, such calls for a roll back seem both hypocritical and self serving — and most damning to the cause of all, are seen by the current/best touring pros as a sure sign that Jack and Tiger are no longer “one of them”, ie that they’re no longer all about winning but have instead taken on the roles of elder statesmen (or worse, golf course architects!)
Ironically, the fact that the tour pros are so respectful of both these great champions actually hurts the roll-back cause even more — because instead of calling them out as hypocrites, which might at least lead to an open and honest discussion, their polite “hmms” and non committal “yeah, it’s something maybe someone should start looking into” means that the topic will soon just drift off by the wayside.
Peter

[Buck Wolter]

Sadly, I think Tiger’s statements will prove counter-productive, much as Jack’s did/have. Because neither of them urged a roll-back in their primes, and because Tiger shrewdly benefited from/took advantage of new technology earlier and to a greater degree than any of his contemporaries, such calls for a roll back now seem in these cases both hypocritical and self serving — and most damning to the cause of all, are seen by the current/relevant/best touring pros as a sure sign that Jack and Tiger are no longer “one of them”, ie that they’re no longer all about winning but have instead taken on the roles of elder statesmen. Ironically, the fact that the tour pros are so respectful of both these great champions actually hurts the roll-back cause even more — because instead of calling them out as hypocrites, which might at least lead to an open and honest discussion, their polite “hmms” and non committal “yeah, it’s sonething maybe someone should start looking into” means that the topic will soon just drift off by the wayside.
Peter

Tiger was never at the forefront technology wise, was he? He played a steel shafted driver longer than just about anyone and his Nike ball was never optimized for distance. I remember Phil taking a shot at him using inferior equipment. I think he was physically head and  shoulders above the competition of the day.

[Peter Pallotta]

Buck - yeah, that's the story we've been told and that Tiger promoted. But in the recent "My Shot", Frank Nobilo mentions watching Tiger in 1996 hitting drives on the range that looked like nothing he'd ever seen. While he stood there amazed at what he was watching, a happy and self-satisfied Titlist rep came over and said "spin rate".  Frank had no idea what he even meant, let alone how Tiger was achieving the kind of trajectory and distance he was. It wasn't until a few years later that Frank (and everyone else) realized that the rep was talking about the high launch angle-low spin rate formula that they/Tiger had realized was optimal for the driver....and then when he moved to Nike, they already had ready for him the solid core ball that optimized distance even further.
Peter
     

[David_Tepper]

Isn’t there something ironic about Tiger backing a roll back in equipment since he’s the guy who earned a fortune not only using but endorsing game improvement equipment.

Niall C. -

I think Buck W. is right about this. Tiger pretty much stuck with "old-school" golf equipment (blade irons, steel shafted woods) throughout his whole playing career.

However, I do think Mickelson's comments about Tiger playing with "inferior" equipment were just another example of "Phil being Phil" and talking his occasional nonsense.

DT 

[jeffwarne]

Sadly, I think Tiger’s statements will prove counter-productive, much as Jack’s did/have. Because neither of them urged a roll-back in their primes, and because Tiger shrewdly benefited from/took advantage of new technology earlier and to a greater degree than any of his contemporaries, such calls for a roll back now seem in these cases both hypocritical and self serving — and most damning to the cause of all, are seen by the current/relevant/best touring pros as a sure sign that Jack and Tiger are no longer “one of them”, ie that they’re no longer all about winning but have instead taken on the roles of elder statesmen. Ironically, the fact that the tour pros are so respectful of both these great champions actually hurts the roll-back cause even more — because instead of calling them out as hypocrites, which might at least lead to an open and honest discussion, their polite “hmms” and non committal “yeah, it’s sonething maybe someone should start looking into” means that the topic will soon just drift off by the wayside.
Peter

Tiger was never at the forefront technology wise, was he? He played a steel shafted driver longer than just about anyone and his Nike ball was never optimized for distance. I remember Phil taking a shot at him using inferior equipment. I think he was physically head and  shoulders above the competition of the day.

What Buck said.


Why on earth are we worried about manufacturers while the game itself suffers?
I would think they might want to save a few hundred million on R & D


Players have to focus on what's in front of them and available-they have no reason to believe there will be any rollback. So they wisely continue to optimize.
But when they changed the grooves they adjusted-when they changed the anchor-they ignored


Peter,
Tiger was hitting drives like no one had seen before WELL before 1996.
Not too many had seen drives like Jack's either in the early 60's.
That's my beef with modern equipment-bombing it is so common-there's no separation between good and great. There was separation between Jack and the tour, and Tiger and the tour.


Nobilo smartly found his place in the booth

[BCrosby]

"That's my beef with modern equipment-bombing it is so common-there's no separation between good and great. There was separation between Jack and the tour, and Tiger and the tour."

Tiger made a similar point recently. He thinks he will be advantaged relative to the field by a rollback (though given his diminished skills he may be out of touch).

I'd guess that Vardon, Taylor and Braid were in favor of a rollback for the same reason.

Bob

[Kalen Braley]

And 20 years from now, the current crop of future former greats will be saying same and how we need to return to "classic" 7500 yard courses.


Round and round it goes, no one is unbiased or objective in these matters...

[Peter Flory]

Seems strange that his lowest driver swing speed produced the 300+ yard drive. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()