[Mike_Cirba]

That's it...I'm sold!

I'm moving to a 50 incher this year.   Longer if I can get it!

I want a head on it as big as a canned Ham.  

And, of course...an XXXXXXtra stiff shaft!


Oh...we're talking golf equipment??  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Cirba,

Well, you were talking about equipment of some kind.

Tom D,

I am still of the opinion that your biggest obstacle to joining ASGCA is your refusal to fill out an application......

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

You need to turn on the spam filter on your email.

One thing funny about the Bang Golf website is that it is blocked at my work site for pornographic content.

[Anthony Butler]

Having read my Golf Digest with the Tom Doak interview just yesterday, I expected there would be a healthy thread on GCA.com. For some reason it contains two pages of comments about Matt Ward's proported 'length'. Both of his driver and with his driver...

Anyway, about Tom's quote re: Augusta National.
"The two times I've spent time there, the most impressive part of it is the scale of the whole place -- the big trees, the big hills, the wide-open fairways. Now it looks like two strips of rough with a little narrow fairway in between, and it's out of scale with the rest of the place."

Beyond changing the scale of one of Augusta's signature elements, the ANGC has taken the original architects' intention–to produce the multiplicity of playing angles you get at TOC and translate into the site at ANGC–and completely shelved it in the interests of making the course a greater challenge for the Masters Tournament. (It seems to have worked the last three years, competitors have averaged -6 for winning score.)

The question I have for Tom or anyone else: Would the Masters be better off simply presenting the fairways as originally designed and letting the chips fall or is there any other way they can add challenge to the course without destroying the scale of the design? At the moment, adding length to the course could be considered as fitting in with existing design elements BIG TREES, BIG SLOPES, BIG HOLES...

[Mike Wagner]

Matt,


Let's see if sales of the "bang" get within 2% of Big Bertha sales over the years.  Both stupid names.  However, one was revolutionary, catchy, and more or less in everyone's bag at some point.  I don't know anyone with a "bang" and would probably refuse to play with them.

[Anthony Butler]

Matt,


Let's see if sales of the "bang" get within 2% of Big Bertha sales over the years.  Both stupid names.  However, one was revolutionary, catchy, and more or less in everyone's bag at some point.  I don't know anyone with a "bang" and would probably refuse to play with them.

The best thing ever with 'Bang' in the name:

http://www.imeem.com/people/AqDM6l/music/MtiEesGG/kill_bill_bangmp3/

[Matt_Ward]

Anthony B:

In regards to Augusta -- the basic premise of the course - as brought to bear by Jones and Mackenzie -- was for wide fairways and large greens - similar to the concept of TOC. Hootie and folks that followed simply over-reacted to what a handful of people had done -- no doubt the Tiger scoring record and what he hit into a few holes caused such a massive change to the course.

Augusta didn't need to be doctored with "second cut," additional trees, extremely tight driving corridors and the like. Let the chips fall as they may as you mentioned. Adding some additional length was fine but it did not need to help such holes as #1, #7, #15 and #17, among just four examples, to the extent that they did.

When people overreact as they did the Augusta we see of today is far different than what it used to be and if one were to observe the comments from the different players they have said as much.

Tom D:

I am not shilling -- but let's be clear -- this is what you said from the standpoint of ignorance on your part ... "I've never seen this driver, but if I had a vote, I'd probably vote to ban it from the game sight unseen."

That makes plenty of sense on your part.

Opinoins on nothing more than ignorance is really enlightening. I would think someone like yourself would know better than that -- forgive me for my error.

People can play whatever clubs they wish -- the ones I use conform with USGA specs. All I said was that people may want to consider some of the newest equipment given what it provides compared to something from four or more years ago. The choice is for them to decide.

Tom, enough of the spin that I put something here for the purposes of self promotion. If you believe that then you are really sipping some strong kool-aid -- I mentioned previosuly how often threads can move to different items unrelated to the original post. It happens to one's I've started and others as well.

Mike W:

How bout you try to understand today's golf market and those associated with it? The big names are not the only players in the equipment industry today.

I never made the claim smaller sized companies could effectively compete using the same tactics as the bigger size companies.

Smaller size companies - like Bang -- are creating a niche for themselves and as a result are also drawing considerable attention because of the type of product (totally legal I might add) they are producing. There are a number of others -- many of them usually attend the PGA Show each January.

Keep in mind, that small size companies can become larger -- the beginnings are often not fully appreciated when they start -- I can think of a few large ones today like Ping which started off from nothing more than Karsten Solheim's playing around with a putter design.

The Remax Long Drive Championships are one measurement tool on what they are using at that level. If the product sucked the guys and gals competing would use something else.

These smaller-sized companies are using one specialty club in order to drive eyeballs through either Viral marketing or informercials, the Web and the like. Adams did the same thing a few years ago with its Tight Lies club line. Often times many of these companies will not be able to secure regular TV time through paid advertisements because of the costs tied to that element.

Mike, who you play with is your business -- but if you turn down someone because they have a Bang Club in their bag -- I have to ask you did you turn down someone who played illegal Callaway products a short time ago -- at least the former conformed with USGA specs -- the latter did not.

Mike B:

North Jersey - as in New Jersey. You know Mike just like when people say Northern California --they are in California -- not in Oregon or Washington State. Got it now.

Mike, I value architecture whether it's long, medium or short courses and have opined on them in a number of ways and times on this site. If you need specific examples I'd be happy to oblige. Of course, stereotypes often are applied to me because people feel free to cherry pick off only certain courses I have mentioned -- the others are then forgotten.

Another point -- I consider different elements of my game to be strong at different times -- driving is just one part.

To your last point -- I consider my mind to be open to any course -- to any style -- to any architect. Whether a course fits my game in a general or specific sense -- is not the primary consideration I make when commenting -- either here or elsewhere.

Garland:

It's amazing for you to thoroughly understand my game -- site unseen. Thanks for the Kreskin ability for such insights.

I'd be more than happy to take strokes from Huck or you.

[Garland Bayley]

OK Matt,

I propose you and Huck play straight up at Pasa. We'll send John V B along as score keeper/referee. I suspect Huck would be up for the match given the posts he has made here.

As for me, since my handicap is more than 20 strokes higher than yours, I suspect a match between us would not be too informative.

You of course will be required to carry your 47 inch XXX staff Bang driver.

[Carl Nichols]

The direction this thread is heading appears to prove Mike Young's point about taking things a little too seriously here. 

[Kirk Gill]

Matt, thanks for your reply to my earlier question. It is certainly true that driving the ball a long way is part and parcel of golf, but as a lot of the recent responses on this thread would indicate, there are a lot of folks out here have issues with how much easier the current equipment is to hit long and straight, and dubious about what that means for currently existing courses and on the construction of courses in the future. On one level I certainly agree with you - asking the longer driver to work the ball is a good thing, but the last thing I want is for golf to turn into a "long driving contest," so bringing up that competition in regards to a certain brand of equipment makes me, perhaps illogically, want to stay as far away from that brand as possible ! Golf has traditions and history, and one of the ironies of the sport is that by and large folks love game improvement technology for their own game, and decry what it does to golf's tradition and history on a larger scale and the top echelons of the sport. I'm not smart enough to come up with an answer for that issue.

And one comment I liked in Tom Doak's interview was his comment about the 4th at Barnbougle, and how if it was measured in yards as it would have been up here, someone might have wanted it stretched a bit to be over 300 yards, but that down there it didn't matter. Why is that? Why are certain numbers so important up here, to Americans, I presume? Is it marketing only, or is a different way of looking at the game? Is match play more common down under? It just seems to me that absolute distance norms and other issues like "fairness" become less important as match play becomes more predominant.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()