What was the most telling confirmation that things had changed, distance wise ?

« **Reply #50 on:** January 21, 2006, 05:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Kevin_Reilly on January 21, 2006, 01:21:38 PM

He did hit the shot well, because he made a small adjustment to his swing on the downswing (figuring out that he needed to make the adjustment half way through the swing). That is how he has described the shot countless times.

He certainly describes the shot that way now, including in a TV commercial that has run a million or so times. That is very different from how he described it 30 or so years ago, though, which is the way I related. Or so goes my memory, which though not 100% right is usually pretty good.

« **Reply #51 on:** January 21, 2006, 06:06:48 PM »

Shivas,

What you've observed with iron distance isn't really a secret or a mystery. The way the new ball works to increase driver distance is for higher clubhead speeds and straighter faces to allow you to hit "through" the outer cover that helps spin to the inner layer which makes the ball act more like an old Top Flight in terms of reducing spin. Its not as though they could make it behave that way for a driver but not when hit by an iron.

If you are more of a sweeper with the irons like I am, than someone who hits steeply down on it and gets a lot of spin like most pros, you don't get enough spin on the longer irons to get the correct trajectory that would lead to the distance benefits. For instance, I used to be pretty awesome with my 1 iron from the fairway, I could hit it over the tops of mature trees I hit it so damn high. I lost a little height going to the Professional from the Tour Balata, but it was still up there more than high enough.

When I switched to the Pro V1, things were different. I had a really hard time hitting it more than about 40 feet off the ground, so I actually lost carry distance from the fairway -- the carry distance was about the same as my 2 iron at best, perhaps even less, but it would roll more when the conditions allowed. But nowadays I rarely hit my 1 iron from the fairway unless there's plenty of roll to be had.

I also had to change how I played with my tee shots with it. I used to tee it up about like a perfect fairway lie and hit it normally. Now I tee it about 1/3" high and play it a bit forward, and catch it very slightly on the upswing, kind of like a driver. Gets that good old trajectory I know and love back, but since I'm still not spinning it like it should be spun to get the most benefit, it doesn't really go any farther than it did in the past. But since its for used control purposes, the distance I'm carrying it is more than adequate.

You should perhaps be happy you hit your irons further than you used to AT ALL. I hit mine pretty much the same distances you do, but they are pretty much unchanged from 20 years ago and all the time in between (using the same irons since 1989 so there's no loft inflation or shaft lengthening since then) Now maybe the fact I'm hitting the same distance now that I did with a balata ball in 1995 just means the modern ball is giving me just enough extra distance to compensate for any aging related losses, or maybe I benefit even less than you from the new ball with my very shallow angle of attack.

I have wondered if, given how the new ball caused everyone's driver to need to go up in loft, if sweepers like me might be better off having more loft on irons to get the correct launch angle conditions for better iron distance. I know it sounds goofy, but I wonder if I took the same 3i head and shaft length, but gave it a 4i loft if the additional launch angle might not help it actually go further than it would with the 3i loft to make up for my not putting enough spin on it to put it on that trajectory naturally.

« **Reply #52 on:** January 21, 2006, 07:54:10 PM »

Doug,

I think the latest high-tech feature is "fitting", finding out what works best for each golfer based on their swing elements.

I'm about to embark on that journey, not knowing where it will take me.

I just read an article about improvements in shafts and the quest for longer shafts that will provide more distance while retaining control.

I'm one of those individuals who don't think that the distance issue has "maxed" itself out.

« **Reply #53 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:25:39 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 21, 2006, 04:40:55 PM

Kevin Reilly,

I have MacGregor irons from the 50's, Tommy Armour's and some old colorchromes too. Today's 8-iron is NOT the same as a 6-iron from the 50's. In 1985 when I switched from my MacGregor's to Ping Eye 2's, I was shorter with the Eye 2's, especially from the rough.

With the same steel shafts, there might be a club difference, at most, in today's irons versus those in the 60's.

The pre-1989 Eye2's had relatively comparable lofts with irons from the old days. They had a 50.5* pitching wedge, for example. That's a gap wedge today. Compare that to the 44-46* pitching wedges that are commonplace in off the rack sets from any number of manufacturers today.

Your shorter length with the Eye 2's could be attributable to their lower center of gravity, which combined with their weak lofts would launch the ball higher (and shorter).

« **Reply #54 on:** January 21, 2006, 09:12:43 PM »

For me, it was 3 or 4 years ago at Firestone on the 16th in one of the WGC events. Mickelson hit a drive over 400 yards and had an iron into a green that had once been unreachable in two shots.

« **Reply #55 on:** January 22, 2006, 04:17:20 AM »

Patrick,

Unfortunately I believe you are right. Hell, like I said I'm playing the same irons since 1989, and my driver is a $90 component club I bought in early 2001 (Integra 400cc) so its not like I'm going to the launch monitors and trying out dozens of shafts trying to optimize myself and I still saw some real benefit from the new balls.

I did do the True Temper ShaftLab a couple years ago and it told me I should be using an X200 driver and S400 iron shaft. Since I used to use an X100 driver and have an "X-Stiff" graphite (for whatever that's worth given that there are no standards) in my driver and S500 in my irons I guess I have the right flex. But there are a lot of knobs to tweak besides that in terms of kick point, torque, weight, swingweight, etc. I have no doubt that a real launch monitor session or two would probably help me, I'm just too lazy to bother with it because getting more distance isn't the limiting factor to my golfing success. Hook me up to a machine that tells me how to hit it straighter and I'll be first in line with my checkbook in hand

What I really fear that hasn't even happened yet that will probably once again take the USGA totally by surprise is when nanotech comes to golf shafts. Once making sheets of carbon nanotubes is cheap, or better (worse) yet just making/growing them in the shape of a shaft, we'll have shafts of however low torque you want that easily weigh less than 10 grams. What does that mean for golf? I don't really know since there's nothing remotely like that even possible today, but it will happen in 10-15 years and it probably won't be good for the game.

That's ignoring what may be possible with the similar technologies used for making clubheads and balls. The stuff you see referred to today as "nanotechnology" is based on a bullshit definition (using anything less than 100 nanometers in size) so its basically all hype with little substance, but when the real thing as defined by Eric Drexler (the guy who invented the word "nanotechnology") comes along, it'll make all this multilayer ball and titanium driver stuff like look gutta percha and play clubs by comparison. The fact the USGA was totally blindsided by what has happened over the past five years and still has their head in the sand about the technology issue doesn't make me believe there is any chance they'll be in front of this when it happens.

« **Reply #56 on:** January 22, 2006, 08:23:55 AM »

"TEPaul,
What you're missing is that Hogan was 215 yard from the center of the green after his drive."

Patrick;

I am? It seems what your missing is my post #45. Why don't you try the rather simple practice of reading first before you shoot your yap off?

"Hogan did hit 6 iron in the morning, and there is debate as to whether he hit 1 or 2 iron in the afternoon, or some combination of 1 iron loft with 2 iron length."

Sully:

Whatever it was Hogan hit in the afternoon (from where the plaque is today) do you realize that club got ripped off just after that round and did not come back again for perrhaps 30-40 years? But it's at Far Hills now and whatever it is isn't hard to determine.

Speaking of famous clubs at Far Hills did I ever tell you guys the story of the famous 9 iron Gary Cowan sunk for an eagle on the 72nd hole at Wilmington to win the US Amateur?

« **Reply #57 on:** January 22, 2006, 11:35:24 AM »

TEPaul,

A 6-iron is still four clubs more than a wedge.

The real test doesn't lie with Shivas.

It lies with today's PGA Tour pros driving from the same tees that Hogan played from.

And, we know the answer to that test.

The answer resulted in new tees being installed 50 or more yards behind the tee that Hogan played from.

« **Reply #58 on:** January 22, 2006, 12:25:58 PM »

Some interesting stuff. For me what I know is that 30 years removed from college I'm longer now than I've ever been and its not due to the fitness room. Maybe my swing is a little better now but I think that shows in consistency rather than distance. Seems like each new driver ever since my metal Taylormade Burner brings more distance even though I'm less athletic and less flexible. I'm still using a 3-4 year old driver around 390 cc, so maybe I can upgrade again and get longer.

The new hybrid doesn't hurt either. My iron distance has pretty much stayed the same even though I'm using blades with steel shafts, not much enhancement due to technology from 20-30 years ago, so what does that tell you. The ball has allowed me to retain my distance with the irons and the ball combined with the driver head and shaft have made me longer with the driver. Regardless Tiger Woods almost driving the 10th at Cog Hill last summer was just plain ridiculous.

« **Reply #59 on:** January 23, 2006, 10:41:29 AM »

Ok since we're all telling our 18th at Merion fish stories.

About 25 years ago I was an assistant at Pine Valley and could still jump, played as the guest of an excellent amateur player named Don Norbury. At the time I hit it a little further than "Norbs" even though he played a little better. I hit five iron to 18 and he hit some kind of utility wood (from the back of the bus).

Two years ago from approximately the same tee I hit wedge/ nine iron on successive days in the member guest. Case closed.

« **Reply #60 on:** January 23, 2006, 10:46:23 AM »

These are all great stories.

None have served to refute my premise. I shall restate such:

The VERY long hitters in the game do have an issue - the ball does go too far for them, and it is silly that shivas hit a PW into 18 Merion where Hogan hit a 6iron or a 2iron.

BUT... the effect on average guys like myself has been negligible. Playing from a tee 50 yards back of Hogan, I would be lucky to reach that hole in two blows at all, and only would do so if I got a lot of roll benefit.

The game remains very fair and relevant for us average joes. It's you sluggers who have the problem.

No?

« **Reply #61 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:18:44 AM »

I think that is a great point Tom, but it starts to effect everyone else when the courses are made/changed to accommodate the bombers.

I realize that again this may be a small percentage, but if I were a member at a club and there was a program to lengthen the course and in the process the strategies and character were altered for the average player than it would be a problem for me and many others.

Now if waaayyy back tees are made and I still get the same course at my tees for the same $$$ than I don't mind. Some would argue that all this need for more length makes golf more costly and that makes sense to me.

I suppose if you are fortunate enough to have access to the classic/top courses, and the changes are ruining the original design intent, than I can see where the length issue would disturb you.

I don't have access, and I want to play affordable golf, so I want the ball to get pulled back, or have developers and owners stop trying to make a "Championship Course" for an event that will never come.

Sorry in advance for the rambling.

« **Reply #62 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:24:22 AM »

Dave - it is a very valid point that when courses get changed to accomodate the bombers, that is NOT a good thing. And of course that is happening way too much, particularly at the championship level, but also as new courses get built that "must have" 7500-8000 yard tees - that "championship course for a championship that will never come" - well said.

So this does remain a very important issue.

I just wonder if the answer lies in equipment or in changing perceptions?

TH

« **Reply #63 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:37:35 AM »

I think its a little of both equipment and perceptions. In hockey the perception was that the games were too low scoring and too slow. So they changed some rules as well as the equipment of the golie (smaller pads) to help bring the game back.

As a viewer I miss seeing golf pros shaping shots with mid to long irons. It may still happen but I see more low-mid iron approaches with out as much shot making. The pros play a hugely different game than the recreational player now because the technology gains are not equivelent.

« **Reply #64 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:46:22 AM »

I think the pros have ALWAYS played a different game than us joes - but you're right, it is way more pronounced than ever as the distance gap is WAY greater than ever.

What I mean by changing perceptions though is this: if people could just get over it and understand that the pros do play a different game and always have, then they could have their game, we could have ours... They could have their championship courses and do whatever the hell they want to them to make them the proper challenge, ours could be left alone. Now I know this WAY oversimplifies the issue; and I also know that trying to emulate the pros and playing the game on the same fields they do is one of the great joys and lures of golf. I just don't think that if we go this way, it has to be mutually exclusive... the courses they use for championships could still be played by us joes from time to time, as a masochistic sort of fun...

It's just going to take one club like Merion to say screw it, enough's enough, you are NOT changing our course - rather than course after course seemingly cow-towing (sp.?) to this. Then hopefully others follow. The tour is left with creating its own fields of play for its own uses - like they do now with their TPCs. They play there, classic courses get left alone.

I the perception could change in this direction, this could all turn around. The monster courses would be seen as stupid rather than revered. After a time, a natural pull-back in equipment for pros might occur, as the game they play on their monster courses gets to be seen for what it is - out of touch with reality. 7000 yards returns as a monster-standard, not a minimum....

I guess it is a foolish dream. It's just that there are SO many more of us than there are of them... change the perceptions and the majority rules, not the tiny minority.

TH

« **Reply #65 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:58:56 AM »

Tom,

the distance variances are becoming so great that At Twisted Dune I tried to design some speed bumps at 180-220 yards to boost the distance average players hit it on some of the longer holes. We also threw in some upslopes to slow down the bombers. However our site and construction methods were unusual.

I really don't think that there is any doubt the ball goes too far, for many levels of player. However, if its exascerbated for only a select few, which I tend to doubt, its still a problem.

If you saw where they had to build some tees at Merion to defend par you wouldn't believe it, and for me Merion is one of the finest tests of golf I have ever seen. I hate to see technology overcome skill.

« **Reply #66 on:** January 23, 2006, 11:59:54 AM »

Tom Huckaby,

It's not just the PGA Tour Pros that are affected by high tech, it's all golfers.

You're focused on distance strictly in the context of perfect hits, but, technology has made mis-hitting the ball less of a consequence, from the perspective of both distance and accuracy.

Mis-hits go farther and straighter.

Therefore golfers can swing harder, ergo, more distance.

An example of the impact of high tech on architecture is as follows.

The "Bottle" hole at NGLA, is a great hole that presents a driving dilema due to the centerline and flanking bunker complexes. On the 8th tee, one must assess their game up to that point, and decide how to try to play the hole.

Do they hit a draw, a fade, left of the bunkers, right of the bunkers ?

My first thought after getting my Biggest Big Bertha was that I could now ignore those bunker complexes and simply fly the ball over the centerline complex, thus defeating the architectural purpose of those bunkers as intended by CBM.

I wasn't the only one who benefited from high-tech.
Others were doing the same thing.
The result, the tee had to be lengthened to try to reinstate the architectural values and playing dilema CBM intended when he designed the hole.

Some complain about the lengthening process, some think it's a valid method for countering the substantive distance gains.

But, the real dilema is when a hole, with obvious features in the DZ doesn't have the land, the room, to lengthen the hole in order to bring those features back into play.

I observed your play at Sand Hills.

If we're fortunate enough to play there again, here's my wager for you.

I'll bring a Power Bilt, shallow faced, steel shafted driver, my MacGregor irons, circa 1960, and some old golf balls, and I'll bet you that you can't score to your handicap, and, in the spirit of sport, I'll make additional bets in two shot increments up to 6 shots over your handicap.

Let's see if your money is where your theory is

« **Reply #67 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:04:54 PM »

Shivas,

I'm fairly new here (but a long time lurker) so I missed that. It is however beautiful, and has certainly made me smile.

Tom,

I agree with your assessment and will now dream the dream.

Maybe if we all dream together at the same time it will come true. Now where did I put my fairy dust?

« **Reply #68 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:08:19 PM »

Patrick:

Those are all very valid points. Yes, the game is easier in terms of mis-hits ending up better for us average joes also.

I just don't think it's THAT much easier, such that I have zero doubt that if you gave me some time to practice, I'd take that bet and win money without a doubt. A very key issue here is that what today's equipment has done is allow joes like me NOT to practice, and to get away with it to some extent. But given practice time, well it does remain way more about the Indian than it does any arrow.

Let's put it this way:

TH with modern equipment: scores range from 73-87.

TH with old equipment: scores range from 75-90.

Thus it's just gonna depend on which TH shows up for the given round.

Hey, I'm not saying that equipment today doesn't make the game a little easier for one and all - it does. I just don't think it's THAT big of a deal for us average joes. It really isn't. Heck I too play hickories from time to time, and not all that long ago did an "old equipment" day at the home club - we also did such a thing at The King's Putter II at Pajaro Valley... in the end, one gets the ball in the hole as best as one can. Good swings are rewarded, bad swings are still punished. My scores have the ranges I suggest.

TH

« **Reply #69 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:14:55 PM »

WARNING WIll Robinson, WARNING!!!

If any of you read Tom Huckaby's scoring range and conclude that he'll normally shoot around 80, 82 or so when determining strokes on the first tee.

Fuggedaboutit.

I've played with Tom about 4 times now and I've yet to see him miss a fairway, get seriously outdriven, or miss a putt that mattered.

Consider yourself warned.

« **Reply #70 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:15:46 PM »

Dave - it is a pretty wild dream.

And I do need some of that dust.

I just do have a hard time getting over a situation where such a small minority is causing such problems for the majority. I suppose I ought not to relate this to world politics.

I just have yet to play with anyone for whom the game is too easy. I don't play with tour pros. And shoot, even they miss shots.

TH

« **Reply #71 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:16:46 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on January 23, 2006, 12:14:55 PM

WARNING WIll Robinson, WARNING!!!

If any of you read Tom Huckaby's scoring range and conclude that he'll normally shoot around 80, 82 or so when determining strokes on the first tee.

Fuggedaboutit.

I've played with Tom about 4 times now and I've yet to see him miss a fairway, get seriously outdriven, or miss a putt that mattered.

Consider yourself warned.

Mike - sadly, you played with the good, pre-kids getting involved in sports Tom Huckaby. Mucci knows today's today's version.

« **Reply #72 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:17:42 PM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on January 23, 2006, 12:16:21 PM

In other words, Huck, he's saying you might be a 10 now, except for the technological advances that (you think) haven't helped you that much.

I know that's what he's saying. He might be right. I prefer to think it's a matter of inactivity.

« **Reply #73 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:19:58 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 23, 2006, 12:16:46 PM

Mike - sadly, you played with the good, pre-kids getting involved in sports Tom Huckaby. Mucci knows today's today's version.

Tom,

When did you say you were coming back east?

Seriously, I'll believe it when I see it. You can't pull that awshucks attitude on me.

« **Reply #74 on:** January 23, 2006, 12:24:09 PM »

Well Mike, I do appreciate the faith. Perhaps if I had more, I wouldn't suck as I do now. But it is a catch-22...

Check me out on GHIN - that's my reality. 4.8 index, only due to inactivity - in this sense meaning I don't play enough rounds to change that too much!

TH

News:

Jim Nugent

Doug Siebert

Patrick_Mucci

Kevin_Reilly

Chris Moore

Doug Siebert

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Dan Moore

archie_struthers

Tom Huckaby

Dave Bourgeois

Tom Huckaby

Dave Bourgeois

Tom Huckaby

archie_struthers

Patrick_Mucci

Dave Bourgeois

Tom Huckaby

Mike_Cirba

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Mike_Cirba

Tom Huckaby