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.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #125 on: November 08, 2018, 09:11:11 AM »
I’m not sure about that...

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #126 on: November 08, 2018, 09:34:48 AM »
In all seriousness (or at least partial), what do you think those stats mean? There have always been long hitters and there have always been straight hitters. Very occasionally, someone gets both and if that someone also putts great they call him Jack Nicklaus. Do you think they simply mean that today's equipment makes it easier for long hitters to also hit it straight enough to win? Why would it also not make it easy enough for the straight hitter to hit it far enough to win?


To me, those stats trigger the question of why? One thing I have become certain of is that the people running the Tour want long drives, and long drivers, and they want a lot of birdies. I'm not so sure that was the case in prior generations.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #127 on: November 08, 2018, 09:36:11 AM »



Sure, but...that’s a course set up issue the Tour wants birdies so the rough is short and the greens are soft.  It’s also a maintenance issue because 8 footers are virtual gummies for the guy putting well. And lastly, I’m skeptical of the accuracy stats. If a pin is hard on the left corner (as many pins are within a few yards of an edge), the guy is likely aiming for the right edge of the fairway and misses by a few yards right. This is a better angle out of short rough than the left edge of the fairway.




I think you're dead right on all of this--except the 8-foot gummies. Most PGAT set ups seem to encourage aggressive play and the birdies that come with it. And like you, I don't think driving accuracy stats mean a thing for the reason you cited. For the most part, those guys hit it where they want to hit it.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #128 on: November 08, 2018, 09:39:11 AM »
Ha...might as well leave it now...

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #129 on: November 08, 2018, 09:45:16 AM »
We would all gain distance if we played tour set ups week after week. Spigot on, spigot off.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #130 on: November 08, 2018, 10:05:13 AM »
But we'd be shocked at how short we were to start...

Peter Pallotta

Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #131 on: November 08, 2018, 10:16:23 AM »
Jim - seriously, like Jeff I think you do raise key/relevant points, some of which I hadn't thought of and many of which 'mitigate' the validity of those stats. But if those stats don't mean everything, I do think they mean something.

My feeling is that they mean this:

that there was a tipping point in technology that simply blew apart all the old paradigms. During all the changes over the years, e.g. from hickory to steel, from haskell to balata, from non irrigated fairways to wet ones, from slow greens to fast etc, the distance-accuracy (i.e. power-ball striking) equation stayed basically the same.

Vardon and Hagen and Jones and Saracen and Nelson and Hogan and Snead and Nicklaus and Watson and Norman had to balance distance & accuracy in roughly the same way, and for roughly the same benefits.

And then came the super hot and super forgiving driver faces combined with the low spin (off driver) & high spin (off short irons) golf balls, and we got the tipping point. The 'balance' was gone. And the game changed -- less nuanced, less interesting, less in the spirit that had characterized it for more than a century.

P           
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 10:19:40 AM by Peter Pallotta »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #132 on: November 08, 2018, 10:34:34 AM »
Thanks...lets zero in on that because I agree that this technical evolution was dramatic and I don't know enough about the prior ones to compare.


Do you think the balance was that the top long players all of the sudden got enough straighter that they could swing as hard as they want? And following that, that players could develop swings they had never previously been able to develop, which had an out of balance concentration on speed and power as opposed to control?


I think those are probably true and seem to be the primary underpinning of concerns about the game at the top level.


What to do about it is the big question...and I haven't seen an answer nearly as good as simply ignoring how those guys play the game...

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #133 on: November 08, 2018, 10:46:46 AM »


Do you think the balance was that the top long players all of the sudden got enough straighter that they could swing as hard as they want?




I think the most important question is did the Pro V/newer driver combination allow players to swing 100% with little fear of a crooked/mishit consequence. If yes, that would seem to be a paradigm change--the newer technology altered the risk/reward and length/accuracy equations.


Hoping Pat Burke and/or Mike Clayton will get back in the discussion.

Peter Pallotta

Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #134 on: November 08, 2018, 10:48:13 AM »
Jim -

yes, but I think also that the sheer 'results' reached a tipping point, i.e. that the newly developing techniques and swings and optimization have resulted in the kind of distance gains that no architecture and no new back tees and no set-ups can now redress, and certainly not in the ways that they used to in the past, when a little lengthening and a little narrowing and a bit higher rough was enough to mitigate previous (more modest) improvements in club & ball technologies. 

I am coming around to the 'answer' that you and Sean and a few others have suggested, i.e. to simply ignore how those guys play the game. The trouble is, I'm not sure that the rest of us actually can & do ignore it. I mean: there is really only 'one game', golf. And it's very hard for me to believe that what is happening in one key and very high profile part of that game isn't affecting the rest of it. I can't outline exactly *how* it's doing this, and I can't even be sure whether the effect in the long term will be positive or negative. But I can't shake a vaguely sinking feeling...

Peter         
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 10:53:59 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #135 on: November 08, 2018, 10:48:22 AM »
Jim: you've mentioned before how the top players can find yards with optimization & club fitting etc, and more and more I see what you mean -- and it makes this topic even more complicated for me.

In the meantime, though, and since I don't think anyone's noted it yet, Brandel Chamblee (who, btw, is not a proponent of bifurcation, or of trying to limit technology because of the .1%) posted this telling stat the other day:

Correlation of distance to scoring average on the @PGATOUR
1980-13%
1990-14%
2000-31%
2017-44%

Correlation of accuracy to scoring average on the @PGATOUR
1980-53%
1990-48%
2000-35%
2017-12%

Which is to say: those who feel/sense/say that the game has changed dramatically in the last 3 decades, and that longer hitters now have an exponentially greater scoring advantage than did the Nicklaus era greats, aren't wrong. 



Peter,


Thanks for posting this!!  This pretty much explains why the best players are who they are, and why the Euros keep handing the US thier asses on tight Ryder cup tracks with actual penal rough.


As I've stated before, professional sports should be in the business of at least trying to maintain balance and for golf I would think accuracy, shot making, and using all the clubs in the bag would be more important than Driver/Short Iron or Wedge, rinse, repeat.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #136 on: November 08, 2018, 10:53:11 AM »
I think the paradigm has shifted, but it would be hard to argue these guys are straighter than the old time guys based on the accuracy stats...and the eye ball test.




Seeing Peter and Kalen's posts now I'm left questioning today's version of stats.


If Mark Broadie's study is now the gospel and the Strokes Gained numbers are providing every player feedback on what to improve...and he says the greatest indicator of success is your ability from 200 - 225 (or something like that)...and "nobody ever has to hit those shots" according to the roll back crowd, what am I missing?

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #137 on: November 08, 2018, 10:55:41 AM »
Jim,


You wouldn't be the first one to challenge facts and data....especially in today's world where science and its findings are under constant siege.


P.S.  I won't argue today's players are straighter, but they don't need to be....that's the point!

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #138 on: November 08, 2018, 10:59:47 AM »
But why don't they need to be?


My argument is that it's because the course is set up to favor them...

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #139 on: November 08, 2018, 11:02:39 AM »


P.S.  I won't argue today's players are straighter, but they don't need to be....that's the point!




But why are they straighter when little is gained?

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #140 on: November 08, 2018, 11:04:32 AM »
But why don't they need to be?


My argument is that it's because the course is set up to favor them...


And my argument is that its length.  Because if they couldn't bomb it down to wedge distance, they would focus on accuracy as 200 from the rough is no bueno! These guys have shown again and again they would rather be 130 from the rough (and if they find the fairway its a bonus), as opposed to 180 in the fairway.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 11:07:10 AM by Kalen Braley »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #141 on: November 08, 2018, 11:11:34 AM »
Kalen, nobody is finding 70 yards so lets talk realistic individual preferences...not the strategic decision of hitting 90% of the fairways with a 3 iron versus 50% with a driver but picking up 70 yards.


The guy that's "bomb and gauging" it is maybe picking up 20 yards with his driver at the expense of some modest percentage of accuracy...10%? 20% max...


If people are truly making that decision, it's only because the green is equally receptive from both places...150 in the fairway with a 9 iron or wedge and 130 from the rough with Gap or Sand Wedge...

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #142 on: November 08, 2018, 11:19:12 AM »
Kalen, nobody is finding 70 yards so lets talk realistic individual preferences...not the strategic decision of hitting 90% of the fairways with a 3 iron versus 50% with a driver but picking up 70 yards.


The guy that's "bomb and gauging" it is maybe picking up 20 yards with his driver at the expense of some modest percentage of accuracy...10%? 20% max...


If people are truly making that decision, it's only because the green is equally receptive from both places...150 in the fairway with a 9 iron or wedge and 130 from the rough with Gap or Sand Wedge...


Jim,


It all depends on your comparison point, as to how much these guys are picking up. And that's been the toughest question to answer for a ball rollback.  How far would you roll it back?  20 years ago average driving distance on tour?   40 years ago?




Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #143 on: November 08, 2018, 11:28:29 AM »
20 years ago, in 1999, 1 player averaged more than 300...John Daly at 305, next closest, number 2, was 295.

Now just 20 years later. Its 87 guys and top guy is at 339.

Keeping courses at their current lengths, I would think going back just 20 years would be terrific!

P.S.  And it would have a secondary value.  No way these guys would be hitting 8 irons from 180 with a rolled back ball. They'd have to take more club and be more creative to go at tucked pins...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 11:47:54 AM by Kalen Braley »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #144 on: November 08, 2018, 11:51:06 AM »
Over the last couple of decades loads of £$ has been spent on clubs and balls that go further and loads more £$ has been spent on lengthening golf courses and maintaining larger acreages. Mr Spock might consider it “illogical”.
Some might rub their hands with glee and celebrate by lighting another big cigar while they count the amount of £$ they’ve been able to hoodwink folks into transferring from one wallet to another. Some might even feel sad and shake their heads in disbelief.

Atb

Bob Montle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #145 on: November 08, 2018, 02:39:46 PM »




I hadn't thought of nailing back together a bat handle in years. Thanks for that.

I remember doing that with hockey sticks, except I used bolts instead of nails.

As a kid, when the persimmon head on my woods cracked I would fill the crack with wood glue and clamp them overnight in my dad's vice.
"If you're the swearing type, golf will give you plenty to swear about.  If you're the type to get down on yourself, you'll have ample opportunities to get depressed.  If you like to stop and smell the roses, here's your chance.  Golf never judges; it just brings out who you are."

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #146 on: November 08, 2018, 10:32:26 PM »
Mike, my skepticism of rolling back the ball as a solution to the downstream problems seems to be supported by Cameron Champ finding 20 more yards with a creative club fitting session and Francisco Molinari finding 25 yards with some exercise and optimization work last off season.

I would suggest we focus on the people playing 99+% of the golf on our courses and try to build the game for them. When will the top clubs stop enabling the devolution of the game at the top level by spending millions of dollars to change their course in order to attract the Tours?
Brandel Chamblee just tweeted out that professional golfers are 0.0002% of golfers. I'm with you - let's stop worrying about that tiny percentage and worry about the 95-99%. And for 95% of golfers, 6500 yards is enough.

https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/1060163302632894464

I think the most important question is did the Pro V/newer driver combination allow players to swing 100% with little fear of a crooked/mishit consequence. If yes, that would seem to be a paradigm change--the newer technology altered the risk/reward and length/accuracy equations.
I think that, given enough time to adjust (a few weeks/months), Dustin Johnson et al would still be swinging a persimmon headed driver with a steel shaft and a balata ball at about 100%, too. PGA Tour players are better players now than 40 years ago, and they better understand how distance can help them shoot lower scores. Guys still swing their 3-woods pretty hard…
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #147 on: November 09, 2018, 02:29:52 AM »
I just played Cavendish this week in the company of a former tour pro now playing off a handicap of +5, and one of England's leading amateurs who turned pro earlier this year after holding a handicap of +4.


Cavendish is a very short course - 5720 yards from the tips - and these guys routinely drive the ball 300 yards+. We were playing from the forward tees as the back tees are out of use for the winter.


It was a revelation to see very good players tackle a course I know so well. They were playing tee shots to positions I had never seen reached before. They were playing wedges into greens which most people struggle to reach with a wood, if at all.


Yet did they destroy the course? No.  Both scored around 2 under gross - a couple of shots worse than their handicaps. Both found the course very tricky and challenging, and the greens devilish, even in very benign winter conditions.


The older one, who has been playing golf at a high level for over 30 years, made the point that the course would have been a phenomenal challenge using old equipment. I assumed he meant hickories but No. He was talking about persimmon woods and wound balls.


So here's the quandary. Do we rein in the ball and/or equipment to restrict these guys, who make up such a tiny proportion of golfers, or do we allow things to stay as they are and let the other 99.9% of participants enjoy the game more by enabling them to hit the ball a little further and with slightly less side spin?


Before my game this week I would have sided with those wanting to restrict the ball. After experiencing golf as close to the pro game as I am ever going to, I'm not so sure. One of the world's most renowned short courses was still a viable challenge to two very good golfers. In a matchplay game I would still fancy my chances against either of them - with my 14 shots!




Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #148 on: November 09, 2018, 10:13:41 AM »
Duncan,


Were they taking certain liberties while enjoying the course or studying it to play absolutely their best?
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New/Old Drivers and New/Old Balls
« Reply #149 on: November 09, 2018, 11:12:49 AM »
Nice story Duncan.
I wonder to what extent there’d be a different outcome if instead of two extremely good amateur players there was a field of 156 elite tour-pro players, 60 of whom had an average over 300 yds off the tee, and some of who’s games were on fire that day and for each day over a four consequtive day period?
Atb

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back