Is it the Ball, Driver, Course Conditioning, Physical Workouts?

« **on:** July 08, 2003, 10:09:53 AM »

Since no one single factor can account for all this increased distance off the tee, how would you assign percentage to the following? I'll start:

Ball 40%
Driver Head 15%
Shaft 15%
Firmer Fairways 15%
Physical Training 15%

« **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:20:18 AM »

Good call. I'd also add access to swing technology. Launch monitors matching swing speed, launch angles ball spin rates and such helps tremendously. Especially to the professionals.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:22:04 AM »

q,

In the real world off of the PGA Tour I don't believe fairways are as firm as they were 25 years ago. I can't drive greens now that I could when I was 18 yrs old because of the irrigation system and zoysia fairways that have been introduced to my closests to home course.

For me...

Ball 40%
Driver Head 35%
Shaft 5%
Firmer Fairways -30%
Physical Training -50%

As you can see I hit the ball appoximately exactly where I hit it 25 yrs ago before I destroyed my once beautiful young athletic frame. If I could go back in time I'd do me if it wasn't illegal.

« **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:31:15 AM »

JakaB -

The sum of your factors is 160%. Perhaps this is another source of your increased distance.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:37:39 AM »

John,

Don't forget that you are the guru of wind speed and direction..not math. My figures for Fairway Firmness and Physical Training are both negatives in my specific life. Modern equipment has only allowed me to stay at a constant rate of distance...which in my small world is a good thing.

My reference above was to one of the greatest arguments of all time you had with a doyen about wind direction and speed...congratulations for few things stick in my mind.

« **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:45:58 AM »

We've had this discussion several times before--and I know I'm in the minority in believing that equipment is less important than others do, but I'd venture with the following:

Ball (both the consistency of the new balls
plus the fact that 2--or 3 or 4--piece
balls are now the standard--but how is
this any different than the introduction
of balls to replace the gutta percha or
featherie balls? Progress marches on!) 20%

Head (greatly overrated by 5%
unsophisticated golfers)

Shaft (great improvements here--underrrated) 15%

Course conditions (maintenance and firmness
of fairways) 20%

Physical training (plus the fact that better
athletes are now choosing
golf, because the money is
so much better and golf is
cooler) 30%

Launch monitor (maybe the most important piece
of equipment--the ability to
coordinate a player's swing and
body to the right clubhead and
shaft) 20%

« **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:46:29 AM »

Quassi,

I don't understand the Physical fitness aspect of your post.

When looking at an individual now in their 50's and 60's, who
amongst them runs a faster 100 yard dash, Jumps higher and is more physically fit then they were in their 20's and 30's.

If there other physical abilities have diminished and they can't perform anywhere near the standards of 20-30 years ago, why are they driving the golf ball further.

The natural progression as one ages is less physical prowess, so why are people who should be driving the ball shorter distances then they did 20-30 years ago, driving the ball further, technology, not fitness.

Who is more fit 30-40 years later, Nicklaus, Hale Irwin an all big 8 defensive back in college, Trevino, Zoeller.

These fellows have been hitting it further than they ever did as youngsters. It's the technology.

« **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:57:20 AM »

Ball: 50% for the players capable of generating sufficient clubhead speed.
Equipment (shaft and head only work as a combination- they depend upon each other technologically and functionally): 45% for the above player.
Conditioning:
Of athlete: 5%
Of course: 0%
Most courses do not have firmer fairways, but softer. The grass is shorter, so that allows for more roll, but not as much more roll as the harder conditions allowed in days past. As a point: I have not driven #8 at Lookout Mountain since the irrigation was installed. I used to drive it a few times a year, with a Pro Trajectory and a 43.5" steel shafted Macgregor.
For the players with slower swing speed, almost all of their increase in distance is due to the club and shaft, since they cannot generate enough clubhead speed to take advantage of the ball's enhanced aerodynamics. They get the benfit of a lighter club- the increase due to the ball is minimal over the old Top Flite or Pinnacle- they were already playing a harder ball. But the increased softness of the fairways has hurt those players more, since a greater percentage of their distance was in roll.
For the Pros, it's pretty much 50-50 ball and club.
For the bogey golfer, it's more in the club alone. Fact is, the bogey golfer hasn't picked up much distance.
All this hoo-ha about conditioning among the athletes is distraction. Sure, they're in better shape. But not that much better... and the benefits of conditioning for golf are not so much in the single shot as in the ability to withstand the repetition of the swing and the walking. Give Tiger a 43.5" Macgregor steel shaft- not one of the new steel shafts, but one with the specs from the 60's- and an older tech balata ball, and you'll find that he doesn't hit it much farther than Nicklaus did in the 60's.
Even if Jack was fat and didn't have the fitness trailer.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2003, 11:02:01 AM »

Watch today's young players swing their drivers in comparison to Snead, Hogan, Nicklaus, Norman. For the most part, they make a much more powerful, forceful swing. The ability to hit the ball hard, in my opinion, is a synergistic function of three things; 1) club and ball technologies which enable it without sacrificing accuracy greatly, 2) much superior physical fitness (including for some of the "old" guys), and 3) state of the art golf instruction from early age. A deficit in any of the three impacts the results considerably. In my own case, defficiencies in the last two meand that I am hitting the ball much shorter on average than I used to, which perhaps is mitigated slightly by my "investment" in superior technology (Titleist 983K, ProV1x).

« **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2003, 11:30:13 AM »

Patrick--I'm not aware of any statistics that show that the players of 30 years ago are really hitting it farther. Isn't it all anecdotal? Don't we all like to feel we hit it farther--and we do occasionally? But on average?
I believe that Lou has it absolutely right. The new equipment--and especially the launch monitor--allows the players to make a more athletic swing, which they enhance through conditioning. Look at pictures of Snead or Hogan swinging versus the swing of Tiger--incredible difference in force. That Tiger swing probably would not have worked with the old equipment--and it doesn't work for most golfers today. They can't keep it on the course. The most over-rated statistic today is driving distance. Look how little correlation there is between driving distance and scoring in almost all tournaments.

« **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2003, 11:41:18 AM »

1: The willingness of players to use distance balls. Unthinkable five years ago (Titleist Professional was most popular). Unconscionable ten years ago (Titleist Tour Balata).

2: Clubheads. Lightweight titanium heads have increased sizes and allow for off-center hits. The Prince racquet effect.

3: The advent of players who grew up with #2. When I was a kid - and I'm 35 now - we were told to swing easy so we could catch the center of the club. Tiger Woods and Rory Sabatini were the first two prominent Tour pros to go hard, but a wave of Ricky Barneses are coming.

« **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:12:28 PM »

Guys:

I curious whether any other slowly aging golfers have recently tried out their old persimmon drivers to confirm a serious (30-40 yard) loss of distance?

Also, does anyone feel that their greatest loss of distance has come with irons rather than with the driver?

« **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:46:47 PM »

Tim,

At the King's Putter in March, the Sunday round at Pajaro was played by many with 7-clubs, balata balls and persimmon woods. Many played with old blade irons also.

My experience was that the balata ball caused a 1/2 - 1 club difference when paired with my 1979 Haig's vs. my 1988 Cleveland 588Ps.

I used a MacGregor Eye-o-matic driver and there was a 30-yard difference with my current driver/ball combination.

What was evident that the swing needed to hit old persimmon driver (with steel shaft) well is much different than you see today. Less agrressive, more fluid ...

« **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:54:43 PM »

Tim,

I played with a Powerbilt persimmon driver at the KCII with a balata balls and experienced some of the same results that Mike noted. When I swung the club easily, the distance loss was acceptable, and the ball fell great. However, when I tried to pick-up an extra 10 yards, the results were disastrous.

In terms of distance loss, I am having more trouble with my driver than any other club, though that might be because I never tried to hit my irons long. I've been playing with Apex blades for a long time and haven't lost distance with the 6-W, but some carry with the 3 - 5. Perhaps the hotter ball is masking some of the loss in the irons.

« **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2003, 03:26:36 PM »

Most anecdotal evidence is of the "I hit this driver 20 yards farther than my last one" variety, or "this ball adds 10 to 15 yards to my drive".

Here are some stats from pgatour.com, comparing driving distance on the PGA Tour in 1980 with the same stat on the Champions Tour in 2002.

Fuzzy Zoeller: 1980: 271.5 2002: 275.2 (+3.7)
J. C. Snead: 1980: 270.3 2002: 265.8 (-4.5)
Dana Quigley: 1980: 269.7 2002: 272.9 (+3.2)
Tom Purtzer: 1980: 269.4 2002: 280.6 (+11.2)
Jim Thorpe: 1980: 268.0 2002: 278.9 (+10.9)
Bruce Lietzke: 1980: 266.2 2002: 276.2 (+10.0)
Tom Watson: 1980: 266.0 2002: 268.8 (+2.

Andy North: 1980: 263.5 2002: 267.0 (+3.5)

I just grabbed some names from 1980 that I recognized as active in 2002; this isn't a scientific sampling by any means.

In general, this group has aged 22 years and gained a few yards in distance. J. C. Snead is the only one who lost yards.

The big surprise to me is that the 2002 Champions Tour guys don't have a higher average.

PS How do I specify a fixed font, so that I can align these numbers?

« **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2003, 03:39:20 PM »

The interesting dilemma that the equipment manufacturers face is that they need to tout the great increased distance their clubs provide in order to sell clubs, even though the truth may be that the club only adds 3-5 yards at the most. The truth might relieve some pressure from tradionalists who fear for golf courses, but it wouldn't sell clubs.
Many times I have had friends buy a new driver--or try a new ball--and claim that they have added 10-15 yards. But a few weeks later they are back to where they were. There must be something about a new piece of equipment that makes us swing purer for a short while.

« **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2003, 06:54:54 PM »

J. C. Snead: 1980: 270.3 2002: 265.8 (-4.5)

~~~

Ok, so we can eliminate JC Snead from the list of golfers that Tiger may have been referring to.

: )

« **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2003, 07:41:52 PM »

Get over the "physical fitness" thing.

Yes, the players are more conscious of diet and strengthening than they were, and it's got to help some, but it CAN'T POSSIBLY explain the amateur situation.

I can hit it 30 yards further today at age 33, than I could when I was 21, played three different sports and played golf three times per week as opposed to once a fortnight now. I can't touch my toes now, wheras I could run a 2hr 47 min marathon when I was 21.

My 64 year old father (plays less than once a month and shoots high 80s) hits the ball 15 yards further than when he was a 25 year old 3 marker.

The Prov1x comes out, and a number of the guys I keep in touch with from my caddying days like Peter O'Malley swear it has added another 10 yards on to the ProV1. I got 10 yards out of ProV1 and another 5-8 out of ProV1x.

And don't start me about playing with my current driver and fairway woods compared to almost brand new clubs from the early 80s. Another 15 yards without blinking.

My original home club has had to move three fairway bunkers back to keep them in play, and we are talking members, not pros. Middle aged, once a week, no warm up members. They neither are in better shape than before, nor are they aware of any diagnostic technology or more likely to take a lesson. They've simply traded in their Titleist DTs for ProV1s, and their Honma wooden drivers for a Warbird or Taylor Made V Series.

BALL: 45%
MODERN METAL WOODS: 55% (includes shaft, head etc)
COURSE CONDITIONS: immeasurable, since just as many are more lush and soft as there are those which are firmer. My old club now has automatic watering and plays softer all year

LAUNCH MONITOR: Most golfers have never availed themselves of this technology
PHYSICAL CONDITIONING: What a joke. Australian and American societies are more obese and out of shape than at any time in the past, so quit citing that as a factor. For Pros only, maybe 10-15%, thus slightly reducing the effect for them of ball and clubs.

« **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2003, 09:49:32 PM »

So Lou, how is the 983 K?

« **Reply #19 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:40:28 PM »

Jim H,

Don't you remember Nicklaus hitting the 18th at Pebble in two a few years ago.

Afterward he commented that he had never been able to come near that green when he was in his prime.

That should be evidence of his length over the years.

Intermurph,

What you're overlooking is that these guys aged dramatically in the 23 years between 1980 and 2003. They became less athletic, their hand eye co-ordination, strength and agility diminished as they got 23 years older.

Using the same equipment as in 1980 they'd be yards shorter instead of yards longer.

23 years ago I played full court basketball 3 nights a week.
Today, I couldn't watch full court basketball 3 nights a week.

« **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2003, 07:48:35 AM »

Ball - 65%
Clubhead - 20%
Evolution of the swing - 15%

Fitness has helped more in shot shape than shot distance. Guys are working out more so that they can do things phsically in their swing that they may not have been able to do before. If you want an explanation as to what I mean I'd be happy to write it, but it can be quite boring so I'll leave it out for now. Basically, guys are trying to flatten their ball flight and compress the ball in a less traditional way. Also, fitness has become important to keep their bodies from falling apart down the stretch of a tournament. If you have ever played in a highly competitive four round event with 2 to 3 days of practice rounds before the event, all walking, then you might understand what I mean. Pile this on week after week and fitness can mean more than many other aspects of your game.

As Mike Benham said above, at the King's putter in March at Pajaro we used persimmon drivers and balata balls and it took me a good 5 or 6 holes to remember how to play with that combo. Incredibly, I found the balata ball spun much less than the modern V1 and flew much flatter. Carry was shorter and mis-hits were just that, mis-hits.

I think the ball and new drivers have helped most amateurs and even pros in the mis-hit area. My missed drives with my Taylor Made 360 fly a heck of alot straighter and longer than my missed drives with a Hogan Apex persimmon and balata.

Even though I had a rough go at it at Pajaro I loved playing with the persimmon and driver. It made me miss "GOLF", as this new game of launch ball can sometimes be less exciting. I miss shaping shots and the feel of a perfect shot with a balata ball. I also think the better ball strikers would be much easier to identify if you went back to balatas and persimmons. Watching a shot duck hook or slice or my most dreaded "weak fade toe shot" was a real swing check for me. I realized I needed to sharpen up. I have been getting away with too many off center hits for years now. Since that experience I have been striking the ball much better and my scores have improved.

Teachers and players have learned and are ever developing new techniques to take advantage of modern technology (i.e. clubs, balls, video, launch monitors, etc.) and better conditioned physical bodies. Just watch old videos of the greats of old and the modern greats and you will see an evolution in the swing. Just as everything else in our world, things continue to get bigger and faster and golf isn't free from this natural evolution. Example, the average size of a NHL hockey player in 1980 was approximately 5'9" and 170lbs. Today the average NHL hockey player is 6'2" and 215lbs.

We can't stop the physical evolution of humans but we sure could slow the evolution of equipment used in golf if the governing bodies of the game had the guts to do it.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:18:15 AM »

shivas,

I would fit into the skinny legs with a gut category.

Jeff F.

« **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:58:13 AM »

Patrick--I don't think that you can generalize from one shot that an individual hits. The fairways that time Nicklaus hit 18 at PB were very firm--compared to the usual soft conditions.

Tonyt--I am always suspicious of claims that people make--like "I'm getting 10 more yards from the Pro V1x." Generally, people greatly exaggerate these things. Or at least they don't realize that such gains are fleeting, not enduring.

All I'm saying is that a discussion of this sort needs to be based on data, not anecdotes--and especially not someone's impression and memory of what they used to do. There's a great story that Bob Rotella tells about Nicklaus. In a speech, Jack said, "I've never 3-putted the 72nd hole of a tournament in my life." A listener said to Rotella that he had seen Nicklaus 3-putt the last hole at a tournament a few years prior, and asked how Jack could say that. Rotella said that that thinking was what made Nicklaus great. He believed what he said even though it wasn't true.
My point is--the data says that the ball is going farther. But it also says that it is nowhere as much as people claim. And it has had little effect on scoring. In fact, a far bigger impact on scoring has been better putting caused largely by smoother greens.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2003, 10:24:34 AM »

Like most things in life and sport, the answer is "all of the above". The USGA studied this issue and determined that the average golf course has "shrunk" by 350 yards in the past four years for touring professionals, because of the ball, club technology and player fitness. There have been controversies about "harnessing the ball" since the early 1920's, but there is a lot of tension between the USGA and the PGA, not to mention between the equipment manufacturers and those organizations. Throw the average golf consumer into the mix, and you can understand why nothing changes. We all love hitting it farther and straighter, even as we age. We relish being able to spin the ball. But most of all, we love to complain about others being able to do all of those things better than we can. Human nature.

« **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2003, 05:42:57 PM »

One of the greatest players of all time lays much of 'this' to the ball.

See chapter 7, The Next Generation, in Jack Nicklaus' book 'Nicklaus by Design'. This is the opinion of one player who has seen and played championship golf through the technology revolution.

There is a nice line in the book at the bottom of page 262. When asked what would professional golf be like in 50 years.............Jack said, "I assume we'll just tee off from our hotels."

To some extent, it really doesn't matter as the entire situation can be remedied by a roll-back in the ball, either in total or as a tournament ball idea. As much as they tweak shell and core material and dimensions, manufacturers could roll back easily in one year or less. Manufacturers are constantly changing every ball line year after year after year anyway for many reasons, including 'distance'.

As alluded to by Golfweek article, a tournament ball has already been produced in the sense that Titleist produced a ball that was never sold in retail stores.

News:

cary lichtenstein

John Foley

JakaB

John_McMillan

JakaB

Jim_H

Patrick_Mucci

herrstein

Lou_Duran

Jim_H

John_Conley

Tim_Weiman

Mike Benham

Lou_Duran

Martin Del Vecchio

Jim_H

buffett_guy

tonyt

Lynn_Shackelford

Patrick_Mucci

Jeff Fortson

Jeff Fortson

Jim_H

tlavin

john_stiles