[Jim Sherma]

Where I wish the lines had been drawn:


>No flex-face metal woods or irons
>350cc max head size
>Balls of similar spin rates as the Titleist Professional


I think the game comes back to the scale we saw from the late ‘40s through the ‘90s. Impact would be felt more significantly at the top of the game than the bottom.

[Niall C]

Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?

No, the opposite is more true.

I'd die on the hill that you're wrong here. Because you are.

More forgiving equipment does more to elevate the "B" level players than it ever does to help the A or A+ players.

Agreed.
The difference between the Tiger and the rabbit is narrower than it has ever been.
Just look at this weeks leaderboard.
Two guys who survived via a 16 for 1 playoff on Tuesday made the cut and one is T-6.
Hitting it long is a skill that many more possess than ever due to many things including equipment.
If everybody starts the hole on average 140 and in, vs. 180 and in, the players are far more likley to bunch up, and it's harder to separate greats from very goods.


With Tiger's previous driving and iron skill, if they were playing old equipment, he'd hit it past you AND put it inside you.
Even as he aged he'd still put his iron inside you if they were all playing from further out, but once it became a wedge contest for many/most, a different breed emerged and changes constantly.

Jeff


We clearly have different views on what defines a rabbit.


Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Define A and B players. You may very well be talking about different things.

We're not.

...

More ignorance from Erik. Doesn't bother to ask Niall what he meant by rabbit, doesn't know the literature on golf where rabbits are more akin to what Ken labeled D- players.

The worst thing is that he seems to take golf industry hype as gospel.

[Ken Moum]

Jeff


We clearly have different views on what defines a rabbit.


Niall

FWIW, I think we are talking about the difference between a +3 index and a +7 or +8.

There are damned few PGA Tour player with handicaps higher than +4

FWIW, GHIN allows you to look up an index if you know what state they play in and quite a few pros are carrying handicaps these days so they can play in games at home with the locals.  I've recently looked a few up and found one at +5.1 (he shot 58 ay mom's club), a +7.5 Whisper Rock member at and a +8.4 at Oak Tree National.

Colt Knost, who didn't stay out there recently said on PGA Tour Radio he was a +2.8 at Whisper Rock and getting 2 a side from Max Homa.

So are there guys on Tour who are able to stick because the GI clubs helped them a shot a round while only making a half a shot difference to the best players? Beats the hell out of me.

But I do think that GI clubs help players from about a 10 handicap down to just under scratch more than they help players outside that range.

I am sure that most bogey golfers are getting damned little help from modern clubs, because I play with them 4 times a week.  They (we) hit too many simply despicable shots that nothing will help.  And they result in our big numbers.

When we make good swings, we often hit the middle of the face, and an old blade would result in a good shot.  Now, I DO think that graphite shafted irons with light shafts make a difference, if only because they allow old farts like me to still swing the club.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

Are you sure that hitting it long is not more the result of Tiger making it financially lucrative to put in the hours to develop the skill than it is the result of making equipment that allows others to better approximate his results?

[Niall C]

Jeff


My reference to rabbits was meant in the way it was meant back in the day when the term was coined to refer to your average hacker. It wasn't a reference to the not quite so good elite golfer.


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

I think the other thing at play is.

A 6 stroke gap between say a 12 and 18 HC isn't that wide in terms of ability or otherwise.  The 12 may just be a better course manager and incurs fewer easily avoided penalty strokes.

But a 6 stroke gap between a +4 and 2, is a far larger huge chasm I suspect, in how they're able to navigate the course and save pars even when playing poorly.

[JohnVDB]

I think the other thing at play is.

A 6 stroke gap between say a 12 and 18 HC isn't that wide in terms of ability or otherwise.  The 12 may just be a better course manager and incurs fewer easily avoided penalty strokes.

But a 6 stroke gap between a +4 and 2, is a far larger huge chasm I suspect, in how they're able to navigate the course and save pars even when playing poorly.

I’ve been a 2 and I’ve seen plenty of +4s at USGA championships and it isn’t even close.

[Garland Bayley]

I think the other thing at play is.

A 6 stroke gap between say a 12 and 18 HC isn't that wide in terms of ability or otherwise.  The 12 may just be a better course manager and incurs fewer easily avoided penalty strokes.

But a 6 stroke gap between a +4 and 2, is a far larger huge chasm I suspect, in how they're able to navigate the course and save pars even when playing poorly.

I’ve been a 2 and I’ve seen plenty of +4s at USGA championships and it isn’t even close.

You go John! Kalen has only a vague idea of what a 2 or +4 would be like, let alone knowing course management.
Kalen, you are one of those D- players Ken referred to, and one of those rabbits that Niall referred to. You don't manage the course, it manages you and I. We just take what we can get from what management it affords us, including the walkers on paths presumably out of play that help you find your ball. 

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

Speak for yourself.  John confirmed what I already suspected to be true, because I've never played with a +4 calibur player, nor seen them much up close.

But over the years I regularly played with two very good players who oscillated between 1 and 3 and they both had me caddy for them in local tournaments because they appreciated how I saw the course and thought thru the options. One guy typically played too aggressive and wanted me to help think thru safer options, and for the other one it was visa versa.  Plus it didn't hurt that I putted as well as either of them, so they knew I could read greens.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

More ignorance from Erik. Doesn't bother to ask Niall what he meant by rabbit, doesn't know the literature on golf where rabbits are more akin to what Ken labeled D- players.

And Garland, the next time you intelligently discuss the topic instead of taking a shot may be the first.

I don't care how you define "rabbits" or "B" players, technology has done more to help that player than it has helped Tiger Woods. And since we're talking about the players Tiger plays against, we're not discussing 20 handicappers.

[Garland Bayley]

More ignorance from Erik. Doesn't bother to ask Niall what he meant by rabbit, doesn't know the literature on golf where rabbits are more akin to what Ken labeled D- players.

And Garland, the next time you intelligently discuss the topic instead of taking a shot may be the first.

I don't care how you define "rabbits" or "B" players, technology has done more to help that player than it has helped Tiger Woods. And since we're talking about the players Tiger plays against, we're not discussing 20 handicappers.

Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims? Anything published by a golf equipment supplier is automatically suspect.
Technology has made golf clubs longer. That has made the rabbit play better? Seems illogical to me.
Personally when I returned to golf after a long layoff, I put away the blades, which is all that were available when I played as a youngster, and got some super game improvement irons. The more I played them the worse my scores got. There are pros that say that if you want to improve, you have to hit clubs that don't forgive your bad swings, but rather force you to make better swings. That makes logical sense to me. So called game improvement clubs serve more as score rescue clubs for some players. They don't improve their swings or games one bit. They just let them score a little better with their inadequate swings.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I don't care how you define "rabbits" or "B" players, technology has done more to help that player than it has helped Tiger Woods. And since we're talking about the players Tiger plays against, we're not discussing 20 handicappers.

You need to care about how "rabbits" and "B players" are defined, because they are different, and no one knows who you are referring to by "that player". 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims?

I must have missed the part where you posted those types of things supporting your side of things.

I'm applying logic here, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Again, your game can't be improved much (because it's the best ever), "game improvement" technology isn't going to improve your game very much. There's much less room to do so.

If you can hit a sky-high 3I, a hybrid won't help you as much as it can help someone who otherwise does not have that shot from 245 (or whatever). Equipment is yet another reason why Tiger > Jack.

Additionally, and I'm not the biggest fan of "appeal to authority" type arguments, plenty of Tour players have said the same things: equipment does more to help the guy ranked 150th in the world than the guy ranked 1st in the world.

[Garland Bayley]

Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims?

I must have missed the part where you posted those types of things supporting your side of things.

From time to time, I have tried to search for appropriate info in research journals, but they make it to difficult access. At one time, I joined a clubfitters forum, and asked them where is the scientific evidence for the things they claimed. Either, there was none, or they were not interested in finding any, because they could not come up with any.

I'm applying logic here,

What logic are you applying? I haven't seen any explicit call to recognize the logic of your claims.

and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you only consider a few factors, then you need to have additional factors pointed out. For example, golf boomed after Tiger came on the scene. It became more valuable to practice and train more to reap the rewards brought about by the excessively increased money available from that boom. How can you be sure that technology has allowed the B players to narrow the gap in that environment. Maybe there are just more A and A+ players making it to the top, and continuing to crowd out the B players.

Again, your game can't be improved much (because it's the best ever), "game improvement" technology isn't going to improve your game very much. There's much less room to do so.

I'll have to take "your game" to mean the game of the those at the peak of the profession. Your statement make much sense when addressing your comments to me.

If you can hit a sky-high 3I, a hybrid won't help you as much as it can help someone who otherwise does not have that shot from 245 (or whatever).

The better able you are to find the sweet spot with your swings, the more you benefit you get from spring face drivers. Supposedly they have increased the area that approximates the sweet spot, but I doubt not hitting the ideal sweet spot performs as well as hitting the ideal sweet spot. Therefore, A+ players gain over A players who gain over A- players who gain over B+ players who gain over B players ... F players. Seems logical to me. Furthermore, these players benefit from lighter equipment and longer shafts analogously. So called game improvement irons have been around for quite awhile now. I don't recall tour pros adopting them in the early years. However, in more recent years there has been the development of thin faced irons with spring like effect. Sure, these thin faced irons have allowed the weighting to be moved even further to the perimeter for so called game improvement. Are the tour pros that use them gaining from the perimeter weighting, or from the springiness of the face?

Equipment is yet another reason why Tiger > Jack.

Tiger is greater than Jack, because Tiger had better equipment to use? Balderdash!

Additionally, and I'm not the biggest fan of "appeal to authority" type arguments, plenty of Tour players have said the same things: equipment does more to help the guy ranked 150th in the world than the guy ranked 1st in the world.

Yes, all those college drop outs and guys with just HS diplomas are doing great science, and voicing their results. Yeah, I'd go with them. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you quote and reply properly, I'm not going to do the work for you.

[JESII]

It's an interesting conversation, recently.






Erik,


Do you believe the 100th ranked player is light years ahead of the standard 12 handicapper?




Garland,


Do you believe the 100th ranked player in Jack's days would have closed the gap if he had a hybrid to hit from 225 instead of trying to hit a 2 iron/4 wood?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Do you believe the 100th ranked player in Jack's days would have closed the gap if he had a hybrid to hit from 225 instead of trying to hit a 2 iron/4 wood?

I believe that if both the 100th ranked player in Jack's day, and Jack played with modern equipment, Jack would have increased the gap. Does that answer the question you were getting at?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you believe the 100th ranked player is light years ahead of the standard 12 handicapper?

I'm not going to ask you to define "light years," but yeah, they're way ahead.

Do you believe the 100th ranked player in Jack's days would have closed the gap if he had a hybrid to hit from 225 instead of trying to hit a 2 iron/4 wood?

Exactly. Equipment has helped that player more than it's helped the Jack/Tiger level players (or the ten players nearest to them, if you're putting them on a level where they're the only two).

I believe that if both the 100th ranked player in Jack's day, and Jack played with modern equipment, Jack would have increased the gap. Does that answer the question you were getting at?

No.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()