Garland,

With all due respect...what is your best score? Based on prior comments, It seems unlikely that you set a barrell full of course records with these wedges in your hands. This is not meant as condescending from a scratch player, but the game is not all about distance. Just because you had a wedge into all those greens when you were younger means nothing to me...a roll back would not increase the variety for you because every hole was a wedge before...they will all be 8 irons now.

Sully, as you well know, one must have a short game to score well. The fact that I was playing a top-flite 35 years ago should give you and indication of my short game then.

When I say wedge, I mean wedge or less. That means a lot of half wedges and variants on that theme. Shorten up my tee ball and I would be playing a whole range of clubs into the greens.

Quote from: Padraig Dooley on December 18, 2007, 03:34:27 PM

The ball/driver combo is a bigger factor then the ball alone, try a persimmon with a pro v1x, very difficult to get the ball in the air, or a current titanium with a balata, ball spins way too much.
...

Simply using the wrong persimmon. Get a persimmon two wood with appropriate loft for the pro v and I bet you get great results.

Isn't this optimising ball/driver combo?

The seniors are also hitting the ball miles further than they did when they were flat bellies 25 years younger.  Suggests to me that equipment accounts for all or nearly all the distance gains among the pro's.  

My sense is that fitness hardly affects distance at all.  A golf swing is not much about that.  Fitness can help golfers in other important ways.  But distance?  Mostly indirectly.

Check out Jim Dent or Fuzzy Zoeller from 1980 to today.  About the same distance - not miles further.  Mucci taught me this - technology offsets aging.

Fitness encompasses strength as well as aerobics.  Strength helps distance.

Quote from: Garland Bayley on December 18, 2007, 03:48:01 PM

Quote from: Padraig Dooley on December 18, 2007, 03:34:27 PM

The ball/driver combo is a bigger factor then the ball alone, try a persimmon with a pro v1x, very difficult to get the ball in the air, or a current titanium with a balata, ball spins way too much.
...

Simply using the wrong persimmon. Get a persimmon two wood with appropriate loft for the pro v and I bet you get great results.

Isn't this optimising ball/driver combo?

Of course, it is. But what has that got to do with the present discussion?

The pros used to play a high spinning ball, because they needed the control around the greens to score well. Spaulding/Top-Flite invented a ball that had the same effect of putting vaseline on the driver, but still gave them the spin and control around the greens. The pros switched to this new technology to the point where Top-Flite Strata had replaced Titleist as the number one ball on tour (history taken from TV commercials, so can be taken with a grain of salt). Titleist facing obsolescence copied what Top-Flite had done to create the Pro V (that is why they just lost the patent infringement suit to Callaway who now owns Top-Flite). The change in distance happened at the time of this change in ball technology. It is pretty much a discrete event that shows a pretty much discrete result. Changes in player conditioning are a very continuous process, which would result in a very continuous change, which is not what is seen in the data presented above.

Changes in driver technology have also been incremental. They would be reflected in incremental changes to the distance results, which is not what is seen in the data presented above.

QED

The third and best option Chuck is to forget what the pros shoot...just forget about where they hit the ball...don't change the rules, and don't worry about a roll back...just leave the courses alone. My issue is with the memberships and course owners that think "if I build it they will come"...Tiger ain't stopping by on a whim...so why prepare for him.

Too bad everyone doesn't share your wisdom.

Quote from: JES II on December 18, 2007, 03:13:23 PM

The third and best option Chuck is to forget what the pros shoot...just forget about where they hit the ball...don't change the rules, and don't worry about a roll back...just leave the courses alone. My issue is with the memberships and course owners that think "if I build it they will come"...Tiger ain't stopping by on a whim...so why prepare for him.

Too bad everyone doesn't share your wisdom.

I don't agree.  i love having the opportunity to play pure championship conditions if it is my choice.  Must be the Irish in me that never complains about one more shot.

I have honestly had some of the best times in my life playing courses that send everyone at least 10 strokes above their regular handicap.  I just love watching my friends get their asses handed to them.  There are holes we still talk about today.  Really, who wants to hear about how some guy made birdie when you can talk about the left handed shot out of the gunch into the water on the way to an 11.

I do not see it...I see no discussion of the relationship between the distance Tiger and Sergio hit the ball compared to the distance Nicklaus and Seve used to hit the ball.  Or any other player to player comparisons.

That is what the delta - long short graph shows.

Does the above describe the past or the present..sounds like either to me.

The high spinning balls referenced would be the balls of the past.

...

Does anyone else find it amusingly ironic that for years and years, The Masters did not end with a birdie (till O'Meara's), even with all those half wedge approaches, yet twice in the last 4 times it has ended with a birdie on 18, in spite of the extra 100 yards?

George - remind me; back when balls spun more, wasn't it the case that the Sunday pin position at ANGC was on the back tier of the green?  (A hard position to hold a high-spinning short iron.)  And, in recent years, the Sunday pin position has been front-left?  (Theoretically, a hard place to get the ball close to with a longer iron, but an eminently makeable putt if you're on the green, on the correct level.)

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 18, 2007, 03:30:01 PM

...

...

They may be working out, but have any of them documented significant gains in distance from it? If so, I haven't seen the reports.

I would hypothesize they get more benefit from stress relief and fatigue avoidance than they get from distance gains.

Garland is right, working out may help distance very slightly, but the  main benefit is to fight physical fatique, which helps maintaining mental focus coming down the stretch, and also allows them to spend long hours on the range practicing.

I agree with the people saying this is a plateau.  Its far from the end of the road, because the USGA hasn't changed from their reactionary mode of governing equipment.

I can think of at least one totally unexplored avenue for distance increases in the future that the USGA certainly doesn't have anywhere on its radar that will be possible in perhaps 10-15 years.  I don't know for sure that it would work but I feel it is pretty likely, and could give another couple dozen yards if it does.

I've posted about it before, but given the attempts to change US patent law from "first to invent" to "first to file", and given the Callaway/Titleist thing, maybe I should patent it just in case it pans out, so I can comfortably retire on the backs of someone else doing the heavy lifting and actually making a theoretical idea work in practice.  Any patent attorneys want to do the legal work on it in exchange for a half share?

Chuck Brown,

I've said pretty much exactly the same thing as you about the difference in technological progress between changes that allowed the equipment to be cheaper, of a more consistent quality, or more durable.  I'm fine with stuff like steel shafts replacing hickory (wins on all three counts) metal woods replacing persimmon (wins on two) or solid balls with synthetic covers (wins on 2 or 3 counts)

But like you say, pretty much every change since metal woods were introduced have only made the equipment more expensive to manufacture or decreased its durability (i.e., cracked faces in Ti drivers, more easily damaged graphite shafts)  They've been about de-skilling the game, especially off the tee.  It used to be that the driver was the most difficult club in the bag to master, now it is the easiest.


Paul Turner,

I'd agree that changes to the driver have had more impact on the in terms of greatly diminishing the skill required to hit a driver off the tee.  I don't mean it is easy to hit it straight, but it IS easy to hit it relatively solid which wasn't always the case.  I see plenty of beginners who can hit the driver off the tee reasonably well, but can't hit the ball off the ground to save their life.  It used to be exactly the opposite when I was a kid back when metal woods were just beginning to make their appearance.  The majority of golfers didn't even carry a driver, or carried one around but never used it.

But if you are claiming that the modern driver has been been primarily responsible for the increase in distance we've observed over the last 10 years, then I'd have to strongly disagree.  As I've posted here before, I dig out my persimmon driver every now and then, and when I last did 4 or 5 years ago I didn't see much difference between it and my big headed Ti driver in distance off the tee.  When I hit it perfectly solid, that is (when I don't, oh boy is the difference noticeable!)

Now keep in mind that I've always hit the ball very high so getting the proper trajectory with that old driver would be easier for me than for most people, plus my Ti driver is only 44.25" long which is shorter than most people's 45" or even 46" so it wasn't as big of a difference from the 43.25" steel shafted driver.  Plus I'm pretty strong so the fact its heavier probably isn't influencing my swing speed all that much.  I think the reason most people might see more of a difference is just that their circumstances aren't as optimal as mine happen to be.

Quote from: Jim Nugent on December 18, 2007, 03:55:04 PM

The seniors are also hitting the ball miles further than they did when they were flat bellies 25 years younger.  Suggests to me that equipment accounts for all or nearly all the distance gains among the pro's.  

My sense is that fitness hardly affects distance at all.  A golf swing is not much about that.  Fitness can help golfers in other important ways.  But distance?  Mostly indirectly.

Check out Jim Dent or Fuzzy Zoeller from 1980 to today.  About the same distance - not miles further.  Mucci taught me this - technology offsets aging.

Fitness encompasses strength as well as aerobics.  Strength helps distance.

Average length on the Champions Tour now is as long as the longest driver on the PGA Tour was in 1980.  i.e. the average old-timer hits the ball as far as the longest driver on tour did 27 years ago.  

I checked the top 10 money winners on the Champions Tour.  They averaged 22.6 yards longer in 2007 than they did in 1980, when they played on the PGA Tour.
 
A few examples of them and other seniors:

Player           2007  1980
Purtzer         298    269
Stadler         289    266
Fergus          288    268
Morgan         286    256
Mast            287    258
Jacobs         283    276
B. Wadkins    282    258
Thorpe         281    268
Bean           280    265
Kite            277    253
T. Watson    279    266
Haas            277    254
Weibring       276    245
O'Meara        275    253
Irwin            270    250

Of the 30 or so golfers I checked, I only saw one who does not hit the ball further now.  Jim Dent.  He averaged 267 in 1980, now he averages 265.  Jim is nearly 70 years old.  Fuzzy averaged a little more at 56 than he did at 29.  

These guys are much older, weaker and less flexible than they were in the prime of their PGA Tour careers.  From what I've seen on TV, their swings look much shorter.  Yet they hit the ball around 20 yards longer, on average.  

Maybe the course setups are drastically easier, so they can swing away with carefree abandon.  If not, seems to me these distance gains have come from technology.    
 

Jim,

Thanks for sharing that.  Man, these guys must be pumping iron.   Why the last time I saw Bobby Wadkins he looked a lot like Bobby Bonds!  

The differences are striking, and basically show that strength and skill have nothing to do with it improvements.   It's the equipment.

So Jim, can I blame the USGA for feeling like I HAVE to update my 1980 equipment NOW?