[Steve Lang]

    https://youtu.be/w7TSMTDqmZg


1959 Slaz vs 2018 AVX comic relief




ping drivers 1998 vs 2018


https://youtu.be/7ygG0SG1KNs


and 1998-2018 balls


https://youtu.be/x6B6U0DflaY

[Thomas Dai]

   https://youtu.be/w7TSMTDqmZg
1959 Slaz vs 2018 AVX

Thanks for highlighting.
I wonder if the wound 1959 Slazenger+ was still ‘round’ after his third shot on the final hole or if was ‘smiling’ back at him?
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?

I understand the angle that some courses are over-spending to chase PGA Tour players and the like, but even those courses are a minority, and that’s their decision-making, not the ruling body making a decision for everyone.

[Duncan Cheslett]

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

What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?

I understand the angle that some courses are over-spending to chase PGA Tour players and the like, but even those courses are a minority, and that’s their decision-making, not the ruling body making a decision for everyone.

Quite.


A pro tournament isn't going to come to Cavendish, or to 1880 of the 1900 or so courses in England.


The average age of a golf club member in England is well over 60. The average handicap is well over 18.


Overwhelmingly, golf is a pastime for middle-aged men and women. Those taking up golf as youngsters and excelling at it to a very high level are outliers. Welcome outliers, but outliers none the less.


Golf is currently going through an existential crisis. It requires a constant supply of new middle-aged entrants to replace the old participants who are dying off.


Golf is a difficult enough game as it is to take up at any age - the more so in one's 40s or 50s.  Changing the rules on equipment to make it harder and less enjoyable is not a sensible way forward IMO.


Let the pros play their own courses. Bifurcation.

[Thomas Dai]

Wrong end of the stick guys.
The comparison meant here is not that between a short course and a tour pro length course. The comparison here is between a +5 and a +2 amateur player, which is a seriously impressive level to reach to say the very least, and the 156 blokes who tee it up on Thurs most weeks with some of them playing 2 rounds and some playing 4 rounds and of those playing 4 rounds some will be playing out of their skin that particular week.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

When it comes to forming my opinions....

I'll take thousands of data points of rounds of actual Pro golfers in peak form played on various courses and years of play....over a measly 2 data points.

[Jon Wiggett]

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

What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?

I understand the angle that some courses are over-spending to chase PGA Tour players and the like, but even those courses are a minority, and that’s their decision-making, not the ruling body making a decision for everyone.

Quite.


A pro tournament isn't going to come to Cavendish, or to 1880 of the 1900 or so courses in England.


The average age of a golf club member in England is well over 60. The average handicap is well over 18.


Overwhelmingly, golf is a pastime for middle-aged men and women. Those taking up golf as youngsters and excelling at it to a very high level are outliers. Welcome outliers, but outliers none the less.


Golf is currently going through an existential crisis. It requires a constant supply of new middle-aged entrants to replace the old participants who are dying off.


Golf is a difficult enough game as it is to take up at any age - the more so in one's 40s or 50s.  Changing the rules on equipment to make it harder and less enjoyable is not a sensible way forward IMO.


Let the pros play their own courses. Bifurcation.

The game takes too long for millennials. Shorten the game and you make the game quicker. Less distance, less ball searching. I don't see how shortening the game makes it any harder but it does make it quicker.

[jeffwarne]

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?

Exactly a more scientific survey-and also who's to say they wouldn't have preferred less layup holes and a chance to showcase their driving skills

What does it matter? It was a 5300 yard course and the game’s best are a tiny fraction. Why do some put so much energy into caring what they are up to?

Because distance isn't just an asset of the elite-plenty of low non-elite players driving the ball into unintended areas on and off the course, as well as increasing the disparity in distance the ball travels while diluting the social aspect (different tees) of the game



A pro tournament isn't going to come to Cavendish, or to 1880 of the 1900 or so courses in England.


More's the pity-sadly that ship sailed in 1930


Golf is a difficult enough game as it is to take up at any age - the more so in one's 40s or 50s.  Changing the rules on equipment to make it harder and less enjoyable is not a sensible way forward IMO.


Maybe, yet the game grew by leaps and bounds in previous hickory and persimmon eras.
perhaps because the divide in distance between athletic and not wasn't so large and demoralizing and "par protection" wasn't in full force to torture us all


Let the pros play their own courses. Bifurcation.


Agreed and as Erik has pointed out, many will self impose a rollback via ego as many did with blades

The game takes too long for millennials. Shorten the game and you make the game quicker. Less distance, less ball searching. I don't see how shortening the game makes it any harder but it does make it quicker.

Spot on-to say nothing of lowered cost and increased socialization via less sets of tees required



I just visited 6 under the radar courses in England.
At every single club it was mentioned that their course was "too short for the likes of me" (hardly the case as I was nursing a back injury and walked as much as I played)
It used to be you played the yellows at a private club-except for competitions-now they are commonly in use as a way of lengthening their courses-i.e. Nearly all play the whites
I played with 2 gentleman who absolutely couldn't make carries from the white tees(or had to hit a 50 yard layup second shot) on several holes but played them anyway because the group was and that's where their friends played. They mentioned when the group used to play the yellows that was never the case for any of the group as all could make the carries  could find alternate ways to approach longer holes
-a setup issue? yes(and they could use alternate tees on 2-3 crazy carry holes) but it never came up 30 years ago average guys didn't feel compelled to play the back tees because their buddies will join and play elsewhere if their "everyday" course is set up to play at 5300 yards...

Are theses clubs approaching it the wrong way?
perhaps...but human nature prevails and I'm confident 1-2 sets of men's tees worked a lot better when the ball went 15-20% shorter than it does now for the long hitters.

I'm not one who thinks courses are too easy because of increased distance.
I would argue courses have actually gotten harder for a majority of players and take longer to play due to efforts to change other things to combat distance -and these things (longer rough, faster greens, more bunkers, narrowed fairways) further slow an already slowing game due to an average longer overall walk

[Thomas Dai]

Shorter courses, less time to play, less acreage to maintain etc etc, fine by me. And even better if said courses are playing fiery and have difficult/evil green surrounds and putting surfaces.
And it’s not just just the aspect of male players playing from tees that are not far enough forward for there is also the aspect that some ladies and girls should be teeing it further back.
Interesting comment from one of Duncan’s playing partners about Cavendish in the persimmon era. If one relates it to modern equipment and asks the question of whether or not these days younger longer hitters, brought up more on the bomb and gauge game, have got the patience to throttle back?
And when, given modern equipment, does the challenge and interest issue for the more elite player playing on short courses rear it’s head? That transition area between amateurs playing fun, leisure and slightly competitive or club competitive golf vrs better club/region players wanting to test their game at a higher level? Could they still move out of the transition phase on shorter courses with modern equipment without there also being ‘long courses’? And does that not mean two or more different sorts of courses?
Should there be available some kind of reasonable specification restricted ball to permit elite players etc to play shorter courses more ‘full-out’ in events where they playing against other elite players? Would this not enable shorter courses, with all their benefits mentioned above, to be used once again for such events?
Lots of positions and questions and here’s another question......which 6 courses did you play Jeff?
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

When it comes to forming my opinions....

I'll take thousands of data points of rounds of actual Pro golfers in peak form played on various courses and years of play....over a measly 2 data points.

It all depends.  Which confirms your biases?  2 data points or a fuller set?  Much of it depends on who chooses the data and the parameters, and that is before saying anything about the inferences which they then make from the selected data.

Shorter courses, less time to play, less acreage to maintain etc etc, fine by me. And even better if said courses are playing fiery and have difficult/evil green surrounds and putting surfaces.

Is expense the issue in the game's decline or is it the amount of time to play?  Both?

As a real estate broker who has delved in land, I can tell you unequivocally that the price of a tract has much more to do with other factors than size.  And depending on the configuration and characteristics of a tract, a 200 acre site might yield a sub-7000 yard course whereas a 175 acre piece could very well support one of 7200+ yards.  Ceteris paribus (holding all other things equal) does not provide useful insights on this subject.  Ditto for the operating costs which have more to do with location and objectives of the club.

As an occasional  tournament official, it is my experience that the length of the course has much less to do with speed of play than the things Jeff talks about.  In fact, the preference for F & F conditions and "evil" green complexes are  prescriptions for extremely long rounds (and probably why many beginners walk away from the game- they can play shorter tees, but they can't avoid the conditions desired by those short, accurate drivers of the ball who possess great short games).   

[Peter Flory]

I just saw this quote from Charles Howell III and it made me think of this thread.


"I just spent 36 holes with Cameron Champ, who hits a 3-iron 290 yards off almost every tee and it gets your attention how golf’s changing."


I'm wondering if they are really capturing the true distance gains from the tour players because of all the dialing back that they are doing off a lot of tees.

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,


Exactly my thoughts as well.  As much as driving distances have increased on the official PGATour stats page, they're probably lower than they would be otherwise due to guys dialing back.  If you can layup short of a 310 yard bunker on a 480 yard hole and still have a 180 yard 7-8 iron approach, it makes a lot of sense from thier perspective.  Most only think of distance gains off the tee and forget about how much further/higher they can hit it on the approach shots as well.


#MGGA!!!  Make Golf Great Again! 

[John Kavanaugh]

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html


Look at the guys who still make a living at the bottom of the list. 270yds given the firm conditions the pros play week after week is average at best. I doubt if Piller outdrives his wife half the time.

[Kalen Braley]

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html


Look at the guys who still make a living at the bottom of the list. 270yds given the firm conditions the pros play week after week is average at best. I doubt if Piller outdrives his wife half the time.

And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year.

Guys swing faster now, understand launch conditions more, understand the importance of distance to scoring, etc. So… yeah, of course.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why does that matter when at least 23 individuals have bettered Carl Lewis in the 100 meters over the last 30 years?


I'm more interested in how there is an equipment problem if a professional husband and wife each drive the ball only as far as an average high school kid. It just feels so inclusionary.


If these clubs and balls were so easy to hit wouldn't everyone trying to make a living average 300yds?


Calling Zac Blair...What is the real issue here?

[Kalen Braley]

Why does that matter when at least 23 individuals have bettered Carl Lewis in the 100 meters over the last 30 years?


I'm more interested in how there is an equipment problem if a professional husband and wife each drive the ball only as far as an average high school kid. It just feels so inclusionary.


If these clubs and balls were so easy to hit wouldn't everyone trying to make a living average 300yds?


Calling Zac Blair...What is the real issue here?

Apples and Oranges Barney.


Even the fastest 100 Meters of all time by Bolt is less than 3/10th of a second faster, (9.86 vs 9.58) or when compared to Lewis's best all time in 1991, 2.7% faster.  And if you throw out Bolt which is 1/10 second faster than everyone else, all the rest of those quicker times are within 1.7% of Carl's time.  With varying wind conditions, timer technology, meet locations, that's basically negligible.


I don't think anyone would be talking distance right now if the current guys were only hitting it 1.5-2.5% longer than 20-30 years ago..

[Kalen Braley]

And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year.

Guys swing faster now, understand launch conditions more, understand the importance of distance to scoring, etc. So… yeah, of course.

Eric,

Of course you are right, there are lots of things that have contributed to increased distance.  But its a bit of a mixed bag of cause and effect that I would roughly guess to be:

10% - Improved Coaching and Techniques
10% - Better Player fitness
10% - Faster Course setups
20% - Golf Clubs
50% - The ball!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

50% - The ball!

I don't agree with your list at all Calen.

[Peter Flory]

And the #1 guy 30 years ago would be 182nd so far this year.

Guys swing faster now, understand launch conditions more, understand the importance of distance to scoring, etc. So… yeah, of course.

Eric,

Of course you are right, there are lots of things that have contributed to increased distance.  But its a bit of a mixed bag of cause and effect that I would roughly guess to be:

10% - Improved Coaching and Techniques
10% - Better Player fitness
10% - Faster Course setups
20% - Golf Clubs
50% - The ball!

Didn't the video to start this thread show New Driver/ old ball beating old driver/ new ball?  And with the old driver/ new ball, it took him about 5 swings to get one in play.  That would mean that the club tech has more weighting than the ball tech.  I think there has been about a 15% increase in distance and the Rick Shields test posted above showed about a 4% increase in distance with the new ball vs the pro 90. 

On another note, here is a video of Justin James driving the green at Bay Hill #6 from the tips.  He carried it 406 and it landed softly on the green.  Barely missed his putt for a 2.  I skipped over the part of the video where he has to dial back to drive the green from the up tees. 


https://youtu.be/-18BTegXK10?t=176

[Jon Wiggett]

Didn't a certain Mr. Lyle hit his one iron 270, uphill into a bunker back in 1987? Now a 3 iron is not a 1 iron unless maybe you look at the loft and length.

I used to hit my 3 iron 210 yards back in the day but after I delofted it by 4 degrees and added a half inch to the shaft I now hit my 4 iron that far. What I cannot tell is whether it is the ball or the advancement in club technology that has mad the difference  .

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm told that the COR on my persimmon driver is .78 while on my titanium it's .830; and apparently the 43 inch steel shaft on my persimmon weighs 130 g while the 45 inch graphite shaft on my modern driver weighs 65 g; and I'm assuming that the sweet spot on the 190 cc persimmon head at the end of that 43 inch 130 g steel shaft is somewhat smaller than the sweetspot on the 400 cc titanium head at the end of that 45 inch 65 g graphite shaft -- all of which means that I'm able to (or so it seems to me) swing my modern club somewhat faster and with more abandon than I can my persimmon driver, which results (I think) in higher club-head speed and thus, I'm guessing, in drives that are quite a bit longer.
Of course on the other hand, it may just be that I'm in much better shape than I was 30 years ago, having taken up a high-tech fitness regime that (much like for Hogan and Palmer and Nicklaus before me) knocks off the smokes, scotch, coffee and Philly cheese steaks and replaces them all with the gentle low impact stretches of traditional yoga.
Peter
 

[Jon Wiggett]

Peter,


I find it almost impossible to miscue my modern metal driver and yet I very rarely hit a shot that leaves me with the wonderful fully satisfied feeling. However, with my persimmon, I struggle to really strike it well these days yet despite playing poorer shots on average it is so much more satisfying to play.


I have come to the conclusion that the modern driver has taken all the challenge and therefor the fun.


Jon

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I have come to the conclusion that the modern driver has taken all the challenge and therefor the fun.

Really? ALL of the challenge?

[Jon Wiggett]

I have come to the conclusion that the modern driver has taken all the challenge and therefor the fun.

Really? ALL of the challenge?

Yes Erik.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()