[Phil Benedict]

Hootie articulated the philosophy on the course changes at his news conference today.  He said that most of the new obstacles (trees, bunkers) come into play in the 300-330 yard range, so they don't affect players who can't hit it this far, mentioning Mike Weir and Chris DeMarco by name.  What they are trying to do is penalize the player who hits it over 300 for an off-line shot.

In other words, the longer hitters have a smaller target.  Sounds incredibly contrived and artificial to me.  

[Carlyle Rood]

I'm paraphrasing, but he mentioned that one of the holes was extended to require a 3-iron (or greater) shot--as Bobby Jones intended.

I wish Mr. Jones had expressed his intentions more deliberately.  A 3-iron, today, simply doesn't behave as it did in the 1930s.  You absolutely couldn't hit a 3-iron with today's trajectory.  You certainly couldn't stop it as suddenly, either.  The club selection principle Mr. Johnson mentions is irrelevant.

Perhaps Jones meant he intended to require a low, bounding shot that rewards a particular shape (draw, fade).  But, how do you do that?  I'd like to learn how to encourage or reward such a shot.

I don't fault Mr. Johnson for making modifications.  Maybe those changes will eventually reveal more meaningful or effective ways to restore shot values.  I admire their intent.

[BCrosby]

To get technical, you are not comparing apples to apples by comparing 3 irons in 1959 to 3 irons today.

To compare apples to apples means matching loft to loft and ball technology to ball technology.

Making those adjustments, my guess is that a 3 iron in 1959 is somewhere between a 5 and 6 iron today.

Bob

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

To get technical, you are not comparing apples to apples by comparing 3 irons in 1959 to 3 irons today.

To compare apples to apples means matching loft to loft and ball technology to ball technology.

Making those adjustments, my guess is that a 3 iron in 1959 is somewhere between a 5 and 6 iron today.

Bob, are you sure about this ?

Having played 3-irons in 1959 I can tell you that their trajectory was much lower then 5-6-irons today.

Or do you mean that 3-iron distance in 1959 equates to 5-6 iron distance today ?  If so, that further distorts the disparity in trajectories.

I'd agree with Carlyle.

It seems that more and more individuals are coming to a belief held on this site for many years, and that is that hi-tech has altered the game, and especially the integration of the player and the architecture, negatively.  The ball goes farther, with less in-flight deviation.

But, unless more is done, the trend will continue.

ANGC should adopt the OGA philosophy and develop and mandate play with the "Masters Competition Ball".
It would be a good first step.

[Tony_Muldoon]

The BBC is preparing us for it's first big golf event of the year (it only gets 2 majors) and yesterday they mentioned the course lengthening in a main sports update on the radio.  They then ran a short tape of the press conference

"==========" uninteligiable question about negative comments.

"We are comfortable with what we are doing with the golf course" Hootie

Sounds of camera's flashing and 3 or 4 journalists trying to ask a follow up question

"We are comfortable with what we are doing with the golf course." Hootie (firmer this time).

[Dan_Callahan]

The Golf Channel ran some of Colin Montgomerie's press conference. When asked about the course, Monty said he agrees with the intent of the changes. With the distances players are now hitting the ball, he said, tournaments have to do one of two things: either regulate the ball or change the courses.

He said his preference would be to use the ball they were all playing in 1990 (I assume this was a reference to a balata). However, he pointed out that in today's world, going backwards is next to impossible. As a result, changing the courses is the only option left available.

[Tony Ristola]

Going backwards isn't next to impossible in my book.

The USGA and R&A have the power (they may have to fight, but what else is new today?) to protect the integrity of the game. Some people and manufacturers would suffer financially, others would gain.  Golf would gain. Golfers would gain.

The Titliets commercials with John Cleese are designed to influence public opinion. They know what is at stake. They're running these commercials like a political group. Not too dumb.

It's too bad the governing bodies don't go out and make a fact based, statistical argument in a commerical forecasting the costs involved (construction, maintenance etc.), the destruction of historic golf courses, the fact most inland courses are obsolete and run these ads during golf telecasts and on TGC. They should also explain the effect it will have on certain manufacturers and the fact ball prices will most likely be cut significantly. Cleese's hilarious ads wouldn't have the weight after a few fact filled 30 USGA and R&A ads.  And both bodies should be sponsors of the ads.

[Brent Hutto]

Let me first say that I think the addition of penal rough and narrowed corridors between trees is contrary to what Bob Jones was trying to accomplish and waters down one aspect of the uniqueness that makes the Masters a week "like no other". So I've got that out of my system.

That said, I don't think this is going to be a disaster for the Wiers, Olazabels and Faldos in the field. If (a big if) the rain stays away and the humidity stays low, the combination of the course playing fast and the more-penal rough will open the door to some exquisite driver-shaping and miraculous keeping it in the fairway as a way to overcome substantial length disadvantages.

Heck, isn't Ben Curtis the guy who steered it around Sandwich while everyone else was seeing their drives bounce into the rough? There he is on the Round 1 leaderboard.

Now if they get a freakish 3-inch rain storm tonight and then cloudy damp weather for the weekend all bets or off. But I think there's a good chance that this will be a very interesting Masters...even after Hootie and Fazio have bloody-mindedly drawn mustache and Groucho eyebrows on this masterpiece of architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

I'd agree.

For those who don't, ask yourselves when was the last time a PGA Touring Pro HAD to hit a long iron or wood into a green ?

How often does it happen ?

Should it happen with the same frequency that they hit wedges into greens.

The "demand" long game from the fairway and rough have disappeared.

I'd like to see more 2,3 and 4 irons and 3-4 woods hit into greens, and not par 5 greens.

The Ohio Golf Association took a step in the right direction.
Hopefully others will follow.

A competition ball with wooden woods is a big but not an impossible jump.

Okay, maybe the wooden woods jump is improbable.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I do not think it is acurate to say the new trees are placed at 300 to 330. #11 has the look of a 40 acre woods without Pooh or tigger from 10 yards off the tee to 350 or so out. 17 seems to sart around 200 to 225ish. Gary Player was quoted in the Augusta papar as saying they are putting the same clubs in our hands on those holes as we played in the 50's and 60's. ie a 4 to 6 iron on 11. I think the additional distance is good on a hole like 11. It is not  good on a hole like 7 which does not have a mid iron shaped grreen complex. I flat dislike the narrowing and rough. The course was disigned for strategy and options. Ther eis more to golf than how long a shot you want to take versus risk of trees or rough. Ahgle to atteck to great green complexes is so much a part of that course.

[John Keenan]

Mr Mucci

I would say improbable is a typo should be impossible  

[BCrosby]

Pat -

The apples to apples thing goes like this:

First, the number designations on the soles of the irons are pretty much arbitrary these days. The only measurable unit you can be sure of between eras is the actual loft angle of the club.

So what was the loft of a 3 iron in 1959?

If you want to restore shot values, that is the loft on the club you want people to hit today. My guess is that the old three iron loft corresponds with something between a 4 and a 5 iron in a modern set. Callaways seem to crank down loft so much that it might be closer to a 5.5 in those sets.

Whether or not the foregoing is precisely right, the point is that glib statements like "Jones hit a 3 iron here, so that's what Freddie ought to be hitting too in 2006", is not a proposition anyone seems to have thought through. It has a surface plausibility that melts down on closer inspection.

Clubbing comparisons between eras are shot through with confusions and unanalyzed assumptions. (And I'll spare you and me how balls and shaft issues further muck up inter generational comparisons.) Such statements should be treated with great skepticism. Or maybe avoided altogether. A 3 iron is not always a 3 iron.

Bob  





 

[David_Tepper]

BCrosby -

The Ben Hogan Golf website (www.benhogan.com) has an excellent archive of the various models of irons they have made over the past 50 years or so. Unfortunately, they only give the specs of the iron made since 1979.

These are the specs for the 1979 Apex irons:

3-iron: 23*loft/38.75" shaft
6-iron: 33.5*/37.25"
PW: 50*/35.5"

These are the specs for the 2000 Apex irons:

3-iron: 22*loft/38.75" shaft
6-iron: 32.5*/37.25"
PW:  48*/35.5"

(*= degrees of loft)
 
My guess is that lofts from clubs in the 1950's might be 1 or 2 degrees weaker and shafts might be 1/4" or 1/2" shorter, but that is strictly a guess on my part. Shaft length can impact how much distance you can get from a club as much as the club's loft angle.      

Of course, cavity backs, heavy sole weightings and square grooves have also had a big impact on shot trajectory.  

DT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()