Colonial:The perfect case for the "small ball"?

[Chris_Clouser]

I was looking at something and noticed that Colonial hasn't changed much distance wise since the 1941 US Open to today and thought it would be interesting to see how the winners of the tournament have done over the years in total strokes to get around the course.  Since Colonial has stayed so static in length over the years I thought it might be a good "bubble" to conduct the experiment in.  

For the US Open the course was at 7035 yards and today is at 7010.  Which I thought was interesting that it has actually declined in distance.  Anyway, starting in 1946 with the first Colonial Ben Hogan won with a 279.  The trend for the next 15 years was high 270s and low 280s won.  Then about 1965 you see the number start to fall to the mid 270s consistently until 1984 when Peter Jacobson won with 270, since then you have seen several winners in the 260s and even going as low as 264.  Are we on the verge of starting a new trend in the decrease?  

Oftentimes we discuss the effect of the distance of the ball and the equipment in the terms of courses that are also increasing their length.  I thought it would be interesting to see it on a course that hasn't changed length at all over the last 60 years.  

[Dave_Miller]

Chris:

Interesting.  While I'm sure technology has a definite impact don't you think the conditioning of the players also impacts this.  

In the 50',60's and 70's and maybe even to some extent the 80's the players were not as aware as they are today of nutrition, diet, weight training, conditioning, etc.

Has the conditioning aspect had just as much an impact on the golf courses in terms of the scores as the technology.  Particularly with the Classic Architecture.

Fairways and Greens,

Dave

[Michael Dugger]

IMHO, yes, it does.  Guys are vastly more fit now days.  Stronger, quicker.  We know more about the golf swing, too.  How to develop power, what bizarre muscles make it work.  Ever heard of a notion called muscle explosion?  Ever hear the announcers talk about how "quick" a basketball player is off the floor.  Shawn Marion comes to mind.  We can thank Gary Player for this.    

[Chris_Clouser]

I agree that all of those things do come into play.  I just thought Colonial may provide an good apples to apples comparison where the course isn't a variable in the discussion, as far as distance is concerned.  I could also see where raw distance due to technology could be a part of it.  This whole distance argument seems to be a pet here, so I thought I would see what anyone would say if presented with this type of scenerio.  

[Michael Dugger]

I suspect those who are big on bashing technology aren't commenting because you've presented a pretty good case against them.

[john_stiles]

I do not see this as apples to apples.  Players are hitting less club today at Colonial (fewer drivers from tees,etc.), trees have grown taller & wider, the greens are probably firmer, the greens faster, the pins cut closer, etc., etc.

By 'verge of starting a new trend in the decrease'.........do you mean the scores will continue to fall although at a slower rate ?

[RSLivingston_III]

Not sure what the small ball has to do with Colonial since a small ball hasn't been played in competion in the US since the 1931 ball rule. Or is this a mistaken understanding that a smaller ball would go a shorter distance?

[tonyt]

Dave Miller and mdugger,

Technology bashers not commenting?

Yes, we KNOW that fitness, strength and nutrition are understood and utilised so much better than in the past.

BUT....

....when I hit a small ball from the early 80s, or any other outdated ball for that matter, and then in the same moment, grab a modern ball from my bag and hit it between 15 and 30 yards further, and then 25 to 45 yards further than hitting the older balls with an early 80s wooden driver, I do so with precisely the SAME fitness, strength and nutrition that I hit the old stuff with 60 seconds earlier.

A longish par 4 on my old home course is driver, 4 wood / 3-4 iron with my good condition old equipment and near mint condition old balls (nowadays I can even get home in two in winter now I've grown up), whereas I hit 3 wood 8 iron / 9 iron with my war bird, Cleveland irons and Pro V1.

Enough of the argument that golfers' conditioning is the main reason. It is a factor, but technology is moreso. Try the comparison, like I have on numerous occasions.

[Dave_Miller]

tonyt:

You may think your conditioning is the same as 20+ years ago but I truly doubt it.  If you are truly staying on top of this you are in better shape than were 20+ years ago then I would expect the results you put forth.

I suspect you are more conditioned today than in the 80's If not maybe you should be

Fairways and Greens
Dave

[Dave_Miller]

Dave Miller and mdugger,

Technology bashers not commenting?

Yes, we KNOW that fitness, strength and nutrition are understood and utilised so much better than in the past.

BUT....

....when I hit a small ball from the early 80s, or any other outdated ball for that matter, and then in the same moment, grab a modern ball from my bag and hit it between 15 and 30 yards further, and then 25 to 45 yards further than hitting the older balls with an early 80s wooden driver, I do so with precisely the SAME fitness, strength and nutrition that I hit the old stuff with 60 seconds earlier.

A longish par 4 on my old home course is driver, 4 wood / 3-4 iron with my good condition old equipment and near mint condition old balls (nowadays I can even get home in two in winter now I've grown up), whereas I hit 3 wood 8 iron / 9 iron with my war bird, Cleveland irons and Pro V1.

Enough of the argument that golfers' conditioning is the main reason. It is a factor, but technology is moreso. Try the comparison, like I have on numerous occasions.

tonyt:
Re-read your response above.  I misunderstood what you said.
However, If you recently took a ball that was made in the 80's out of your bag. Then I would suggest that this ball had no compression left.  Over time balls made in the 80's lose their compression and go nowhere.  

Therefore Fitness etc is the most dominant feature.
Cheers
Dave

[mike_beene]

A better apples to apples comparison might be Spyglass or some other big damp course.In our part of the world,old equipment gave good distance because our courses are so firm.Even though I get an extra 30 yards carry(proven by the Nike launch monitor)the carry roll distance is much closer.Technology most benefits those playing more lush courses.Colonial's 419 fairways,in my opinion,play too fast and have shortened the course more than the equipment has.