[T_MacWood]

Sean, I don't think the average golfer thinks very much about distance. They certainly don't lose sleep worrying about hitting it to far, or the impacts technology has on the game.

Like I have been saying, new technology makes the game fun.

The game is more fun today than it was twenty-five years ago? How do you figure that?

Do the majority of golfers have more fun than hickory toating Ralph Livingston or Ran Morrissett?

[Craig Sweet]

Paul, much of what we see on TV fuels an illusion. You are right, we do not play the "same course" the pro's play, nor will we hit a ProV1 like a pro.

But through marketing we are led to believe its possible..."Be like Mike" is now "Be like Tiger" or "Join Bode"....

The other illusion is "Palmer and Nicklaus in their day were no different than Tiger and Vijay today"....

I'm sorry, but I will not buy into the believe that these guys that played the game in the 60's and 70's are the athlete we have today.  The training, the nutrition, the weights, the access to swing monitors, etc. allow todays athlete to fine tune and use every ounce of physical resources available....that alone is probably good for 25 yards off the tee.

You and I, no matter how strong the illusion, are never going to "Be like Tiger"...

That is why I think its silly to talk about "the game of golf" as if there is no disconect between the game they play and the one you and I play.  

[Paul Payne]

Craig,

I agree, that is pretty much my point as well.

I have to agree with Tom on the fun aspect however, I don't think golf has ever been more or less fun. If it had not been fun in the 15th century there would not have been laws banning the game.

[Craig Sweet]

Tom, meet me on the first tee with 100 sets of hickories and I'll bring 100 sets of new technology....we'll let the golfers pick the set they want to play with...and when they are finished we'll ask them what set they want to play with tomorrow.

They probably will all have fun...

But I doubt very many will chose to play the hickories tomorrow.

Everyday at my course I have people come up to be gushing about how happy they are with their new driver, or new irons, or new fangled putter.

But ya know Tom, so what? Does it matter?  Fun is fun.

[JESII]

By the way, did anyone else think this was about Epiphany Jones? She is the New York high schooler that scored 113 points in a game a week or two back. Jordan is quoted as saying she is going to change the women's game.

[T_MacWood]

Tom, meet me on the first tee with 100 sets of hickories and I'll bring 100 sets of new technology....we'll let the golfers pick the set they want to play with...and when they are finished we'll ask them what set they want to play with tomorrow.

They probably will all have fun...

But I doubt very many will chose to play the hickories tomorrow.

Everyday at my course I have people come up to be gushing about how happy they are with their new driver, or new irons, or new fangled putter.

But ya know Tom, so what? Does it matter?  Fun is fun.

It does matter. It has become too expensive to stay on the cutting edge. if equipment advancements continue on a similar rate what will the game look like in fifty or 100 years?

Two of the greatest equipment advancements in the past were the replacement of the feathery with the guttie and ultimately with the haskel and steel replacing hickory. In both cases they made the game less expensive, which in turn increased its popularity. Has there been any advancements since that time that have made the game less expensive? It seems to me that recently all the advancements have resulted in a more expensive game.

If we went to a tennis court armed with 100 composite rackets and 100 wooden rackets...you'd get apporoximately the same result. So what...does that measure the fun factor of a golfer today (or tennis player) compared to a golfer twenty or fifty years ago. No. Golfers of the twenties gushed about their new putters and drivers too. You can provide new equipment for golfers without significantly altering the ballance of equipment vs skill and requiring they invest hundreds of dollars every other year to remain competative.

[Sean_A]

It does matter. It has become too expensive to stay on the cutting edge. if equipment advancements continue on a similar rate what will the game look like in fifty or 100 years?

Two of the greatest equipment advancements in the past were the replacement of the feathery with the guttie and ultimately with the haskel and steel replacing hickory. In both cases they made the game less expensive, which in turn increased its popularity. Has there been any advancements since that time that have made the game less expensive? It seems to me that recently all the advancements have resulted in a more expensive game.

Tommy Mac

This argument I can buy into.  I am all in favour of keeping the price of golf down.  Though I don't spend crazy money on the latest and best clubs or balls.  My old wrenches and a Strata work fine.  The only time I buy expensive balls is when they are logo over runs or practice balls-then they aren't expensive.  

But I do think I am paying more money because of better maintenance and somewhat due to courses being longer.  Some of the maintenance stuff I really like, like improved drainage.  Some I think are a waste of time, like greens running over 10.  I think lengthening courses is largely a waste of money as well.  Unfortunately, I am in the minority.  So it goes.

I am neutral on distance, but if somebody could show me distance costs ME (not the average golfer) x amount per year, I would certainly join the band wagon.  

Ciao

Sean

[Craig Sweet]

Yeah Tom, like I said so what? Fun is fun.

As for your claim that "It does matter. It has become too expensive to stay on the cutting edge."

So what?  Them that can will, and those that can't won't.

But everyone will have fun, right?

And after all, isn't that what this game is all about?

[Brent Hutto]

Two of the greatest equipment advancements in the past were the replacement of the feathery with the guttie and ultimately with the haskel and steel replacing hickory. In both cases they made the game less expensive, which in turn increased its popularity. Has there been any advancements since that time that have made the game less expensive? It seems to me that recently all the advancements have resulted in a more expensive game.

I don't know about specific "advancements" per se but I do know that for the price of a rock-hard Surlyn golf ball 20 years ago you can get a more durable much better performing range of $1 golf balls today. On the upper end, for similar cost to a Titleist Tour Balata in the early 1990's you can get a Titleist ProV1 this is hugely more durable, is likely to start round and stay round and performs much more predictably.

With irons we can compare a Taiwanese-made cast stainless club from today with forged irons from the 1980's that were more expensive, nicked up horribly, had to be reset for loft and lie periodically and would rust if put away wet. The cost of ownership for playing 500 rounds with a generic set of irons today is probably less than half what it was in the forged days.

A generic Titanium driver and stainless steel fairway wood set is about the same cost as a generic wooden set of woods back in the day. Once again, they are not only more forgiving and better performing (for the vast majority of golfers) but they'll also last a long time.

Now with any of this stuff there's more money that you can spend on the name-brand Kool-Aid nowadays but that's simply a result of Karsten Solheim and Ely Calloway discovering a huge pent-up demand at the upper end of the price range back in the late 80's/early 90's. It costs no more to purchase usable, decent equipment and balls now than it did a couple decades ago and the stuff is much more consistent, durable and user-friendly.

Postscript #1: And don't even get started on the cost of golf back when clubs had hickory shafts and balls weren't mass produced on today's scale.

Postscript #2: And all of this would still remain true if they reduced the USGA golf ball distance by 5%-10%.

[Craig Sweet]

And a cup of coffee is no longer .10 cents.

[T_MacWood]

Brent
What is the cost of a high performance Pro V1 today?

What was the cost of the high performance ball twenty years ago vs the cost of a rock twenty years ago?

I'm not too conerned about old clubs that have nicks in them, my old blades are nicked, and occacionally a little rust will appear....my experince is the nicks don't effect performance and I can clean up the rust. Would you recommed I buy shiny new Chinese clubs to replace my old Dunlops?

If I'm going to compete with my friend who has state-of-the-art equipment, should I go with the generic or should go with best graphic, titanium, et al? Cost? And how often do you upgrade your equipment?

If you purchased clubs ten years ago would you be at a competive disadvantage with your friend who upgrades every two or three years?

Regarding mass production and the advancement of the haskel and steel shaft, that's the point. Those changes were a positive for the game because they made the game less expensive and more popular (due to mass production)....and the game and technology remained relatively stable for several decades. Only recently has there been an explosion of new technology (almost annually), which has altered the ballance between skill and equimpment...technology that has made the game more expensive to those interested in taking advantage of the cutting edge and remaining competitive with their peers.

What are the most expensive components of a state-of-the-art set of clubs and golf balls?

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

I gotta meet you.  Despite us not seeing eye to eye, I dig your brand.  But whatever you do, don't buy Chinese.  Haven't you heard all the talk?

I would guess marketing is the most expensive part of making and selling a club.

Ciao

Sean

[Brent Hutto]

What is the cost of a high performance Pro V1 today?

What was the cost of the high performance ball twenty years ago vs the cost of a rock twenty years ago?

Last time I look, locally ProV1 balls were going for $40/dozen in the discount shops. More than that a sleeve at a time in the pro shop, of course. If you use the list price of about $54/dozen that works out to just under $30/dozen in bigger 1985 dollars.

As for the cost of balls in 1985 I wasn't playing golf then so I don't know. I think somewhere in the $25-$30 range for name brand Balatas and $10-$15 for Topflite rocks were probably in the ballpark. So call it a 2:1 or 2.5:1 ratio. Nowadays it's about 3:1 or more because the premium balls command a higher price and there are many more sources of super cheap balls (including Chinese no-name generics).

For those of us who don't hit the ball very hard, the fairly recent innovation of two-piece balls with low-compression cores (Noodle, etc.) are a genuine improvement. They are cheap ($15/dozen), not the best for short-game touch but seriously effective for hitting it "far and sure" by short-knocker standards.

I'm not too conerned about old clubs that have nicks in them, my old blades are nicked, and occacionally a little rust will appear....my experince is the nicks don't effect performance and I can clean up the rust. Would you recommed I buy shiny new Chinese clubs to replace my old Dunlops?

If you're asking would a set of generic cavity-backs let you score better than your 20-year-old clubs? Of course not, it's not the clubs it's the golfer that determines scoring.

My point is, there was a time (more like 25-30 years ago probably) when an entry-level set of irons probably consisted of a used set of forged blades. Now the entry-level is a generic, imported, cast-stainless set. They probably work equally well (although the new cavity backs are much less punishing than mishits and get the ball in the air a little better with off-center contact) and in CPI-adjusted dollars new cheapo beginner clubs are probably cheaper than new beginner clubs in the 1970's.

The fact that the cast clubs won't ding up and rust is just a side benefit. Doesn't affect playability (other than forged tendency to drift off spec in loft and lie) but more durable is at least no disadvantage. Plus they're cheaper too. And more forgiving too.

If I'm going to compete with my friend who has state-of-the-art equipment, should I go with the generic or should go with best graphic, titanium, et al? Cost? And how often do you upgrade your equipment?

Are you competing on money spent and prestige? If you're competing on scoring you can go generic or Calloway and it won't make a stroke's difference.

I use a seven-year-old set of Titleist irons that I bought new but cheap after they were discontinued. I also have some newer Nike irons that were more expensive (a very delightful Christmas present a couple years back) but I like the Titleists better. My fairway woods are some pretty expensive Clevelands, one was bought at near list price the other I waited until they were discontinued. I've used them continuously for four or five years. I change wedges pretty often, probably a new $75-$100 wedge once a year or so on average. I have a bunch of putters but the one that works best is an old Zebra mallet that I bought (discontinued again) for $30-something.

If you purchased clubs ten years ago would you be at a competive disadvantage with your friend who upgrades every two or three years?

Not remotely, IMHO. I think a modern lightweight, oversized driver is a big benefit. I have one that's 460cc, expensive and three years old and another that's 360cc, cheap and one year old. The cheap one works slightly better for me but the expensive one hits the ball real high and straight (by my standards). I bought the expensive one because I wasn't patient enough to keep looking until I found a cheap one that worked. Therefore I paid $300 when in fact there was a $75 one waiting out there that I found a couple years down the road.

Regarding mass production and the advancement of the haskel and steel shaft, that's the point. Those changes were a positive for the game because they made the game less expensive and more popular (due to mass production)....and the game and technology remained relatively stable for several decades. Only recently has there been an explosion of new technology (almost annually), which has altered the ballance between skill and equimpment...technology that has made the game more expensive to those interested in taking advantage of the cutting edge and remaining competitive with their peers.

What are the most expensive components of a state-of-the-art set of clubs and golf balls?

I took the liberty of adding bold emphasis to the part of your post which I feel is incorrect. If you're Ernie Els and can hit the ball about 50% further than I do and still keep it in play then the modern technology lets you dial in an extra 10% or more on top of that by perfectly tuning your driver and golf ball to your swing. What you say is correct for a player at the PGA Tour level, they are foolish not to get every edge possible out of what's available.

For Brent or Tom, that advantage is just not there. We do not compress the ball in such a way as to place the ball/club dynamics in the range where there are meaningful effects to be optimized. What you and I need is actually more spin on our driver shots (best acheived by more than 12 degrees of loft, BTW) not less spin as for Ernie Els. As for innovations in clubs other than the driver...well, there's graphite shafts for people with limited strength or arthritis. There's big old putters for those who can't hit the middle of the face and broom handle putters for those who can't make a steady stroke.

Other than that, there's the golf ball. In my opinion, golf balls today are better than in previous decades and this difference improves scoring and adds distance. Period. Less so for me or you than for Ernie but I'm better off with a  Noodle than a old Topflite and you're better off with a ProV1 than a Tour Balata and there's no doubting it. Balls, graphite (for some needs) and drivers (for big hitters). The rest is just shiny toys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Jones,

Increases in distance haven't been confined to PGA Tour players, hence, holes in general have lost their architectural challenge and strategic intent due to greater distances and straigher ball flight.

And, as the "challenge" of the game is incrementally decreased, the fun and interest in the game erodes.

It's the inherent challenge that's the lure and enjoyment.

If you tamper with the inherent challenge, you dilute the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

What you fail to grasp is the rate of progression.

The evolutionary process was a fairly static trend.
That evolutionary process took a quantum leap in the last 10-15 years, that quantum leap has harmed great golf courses vis a vis the disfigurative process to keep them contemporary.

And, the process has rendered the intended features obsolete, and not just to PGA Tour Pros.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Payne,

For the last 15 years I've played two 7,200 yard golf courses, and, I've played them better than I could have played them when I was 40 years younger.

I didn't get more athletic or stronger, nor did I become a better putter.

One thing and one thing only allowed me to play and challenge these courses......... EQUIPMENT.

[MikeJones]

Pat, I'm not convinced that the 'post pro v1' distance increase has been vast for the majority of players and until you get into the distances that the 'pros' can hit it, I'm not convinced that the difference is enough to dilute the architectural integrity of well designed holes.

As for technology diluting the challenge of the game itself, take a few strolls down the average driving range and you'll see that the game still offers plenty of a challenge for most people!

To clarify my position - I would indeed like to see the ball rolled back a little. I'd like to see head sizes on drivers limited to 250-300cc at least in the pro tours, but if it doesn't happen, I've decided not to lose any more sleep over it. The game is still great and for me is just as much fun as it always was regardless of the equipment.

[T_MacWood]

Brent
In 1985 a dozen Titleist Tour 384 Balata $16.99. Top Flite $13.95  (white-yellow-orange).

In 1985 a persimmon set of woods was actually cheaper than metal or composite graphite. I'm not sure why.

I have set of metal woods ten years old. Knock-off label, steel shaft, small head (as comared the large head of ten or so years ago as comparted to the jumbo head of the last few years). My Driver looks like a five-wood compared to today's drivers. You don't have a competitive advantage with your expensive Clevelands?

My father bought a set of MacGregor-Tourney's in the 1950's. Without question state-of-the-art at the time. I'm sure there were clubs made (over the years) that were comparable and perhaps there were some minor improvements over the years, maybe an insert or whatever, but those clubs were for all practical purposes state-of-the-art for twenty years or more.

The state-of-the-art of ten years ago (or even five years ago) does not compare with the state of the art today...not even close. There has been explosion in technology...and the game is too expensive....and the gap between low end and high end has never been greater. That's a problem.

[George Pazin]

Am I just bending over or am I on to something?

If people would stop altering classic courses, and architects continue building courses like Pac Dunes, Rustic, etc., then I'd say you're onto something.

Pity that's not the norm.

[Brent Hutto]

In 1985 a dozen Titleist Tour 384 Balata $16.99. Top Flite $13.95  (white-yellow-orange).

Well, the TopFlites today are cheaper (about $15/dozen which is equivalent to $9/dozen back then) and much much better golf balls. You can get specific models suited to your swing speed and game, they are more consistent and the covers are not so rock-like.

The Balatas were cheaper back then, equivalent to around $28/dozen today. Then again, you'd probably chew up a couple of them per round whereas the twice-as-expensive ProV1 will last forever if you don't lose it or hit the cart path too often.

I have set of metal woods ten years old. Knock-off label, steel shaft, small head (as comared the large head of ten years as comparted to the jumbo head of the last few years). My Driver looks like a five-wood compared to today's drivers. You don't have a competitive advantage with your expensive Clevelands?

I doubt that I do gain any advantage at all with the fairway woods. Now maybe your particular 10-year-old knockoffs wouldn't work for me but I'll bet there's a 10-year-old knockoff fairway wood out there that would work every bit as well as my Clevelands. I do think a larger headed driver will save you a trip into the woods from time to time.

The state-of-the-art of ten years ago (or even five years ago) does not compare with the state of the art today...not even close. There has been explosion in technology...and the game is too expensive....and the gap between low end and high end has never been greater. That's a problem.

I once asked my teaching pro what advantage he thought he gained from playing cavity-back modern irons instead of blades. He said maybe a shot a round, if that. Definitely an advantage but a very minor one. For my game (20 HCP) he thought it was probably 2-3 shots a round. I think that's a reasonable estimate. Bad shots find trouble with any clubs, good shots find the target with any clubs. It's only those "pretty good" shots where the ball might catch the edge of the green with modern clubs versus plopping into a bunker with the old ones.

But the main thing I disagree with is your belief that $2,000 bag of modern Calloway clubs (the modern high end) confers an advantage over a $700 bag of generic clubs (the modern low end). Both of those sets have advantages over the stuff being used a couple decades ago. I don't believe the $2,000 bag buys even half a stroke a round over the cheaper ones today.

Your point that the ratio between "cheap" and "top quality" equipment is higher today than ever before is true. The cheap stuff is made by near-slave-labor in China and delivered to the consumer by super-lean efficient WalMart logistics. The high end is priced to sell to the same people who buy McMansions and drive 11mph Humvees. The problem with that line of thinking is that spending 3, 4, 5 times as much money doesn't buy much in the way of lower scores. So it doesn't cost more to play golf now, it just costs more to show up at the course with a Conspicuous Consumption caliber of golf gear.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Do you play your course from 7,200 yards?  Did you 15 years ago?  It must have been a real slog 15 years ago before the latest quantum leap in technology.  My home course is also 15 years old and has back tees at 7300yds, but I've only played back there maybe 2 or 3 times in 15 years.  I've always played it at 6500 yds and it's enough challenge.  I also score about the same as 40 years ago, but then I was playing a 6,200 yard course then.  I'd like to think that 40 years of experience and practise might account for some of  my ability to stave off old age.  No doubt technology has helped too.  But it hardly leads to ruination.

Regarding your comments about moving tees back to keep LZ's viable, that seems to be a low cost practical approach if you want to worry about challenging the relatively few really long hitters.  Fortunately my course already has tees back there that even the Nationwide guys have trouble with.  

On your assertion that the long hitter facing a 160 yd second shot is a lot better off due to technology than the shorter hitter, I'm not sure that holds up.  For me it would be a hard 7 iron.  Forty years ago it would have been an easy 6 iron.  The longest hitters today don't generally hit it 160 with a PW - maybe a 9 iron under neutral conditions.  What technology changes do you think make the long hitter relatively longer for that kind of shot.  There's no hi-cor faces on most irons; there's no low spin high launch shots with a PW.  

No doubt many irons now have stronger lofts than 15 or 40 years ago.  Maybe a club stronger in some cases (hence the filling of the gap at the top end of the set with gap wedges).  So that 9 iron from 160 might have been labeled an 8 iron some years ago.  So, a two clubs difference - an 8 vs a 6 iron - for the 160 yd shot between a long and short hitter is the way I remember it 40 years ago, and, the  way it is today.  So, architecturally, assuming there's room to move tees back to put features back in play for really long hitters, I think that older course integrity could be maintained.

Tom MacW,

Why do I enjoy golf more now than in 1966:

With multiple tees I can play from tees that challenge my length (40 years ago there were generally 2 tees for men - one too short and one too long).

The balls last 18 holes or 36 or 54 and stay round and don't smile back   at my mishits.

I find many (free) Pro V1's to play with.

Bent fairways are way better than bluegrass.

My membership costs me no more than it did (in inflation adjusted $'s) 40 years ago.

Modern course design and conditioning is generally way better than it was 40 years ago (with the exception of maybe the classic courses that I couldn't get near then, or now).

I like fast smooth greens and it's easier to find them today than 40 years ago.

There are a lot more reputable courses available today than 40 years ago.

Sean,

It'd be hard to buy other than Chinese manufactured clubs these days.

And, who's foolish enough to buy each annual, or more frequent, purported technology advance from TM or Titleist, etc.

Finally, pheeeew,    for those wanting to dial the ball back, did you have in mind a linear dial or a non-linear one.  Pulling Tiger back from 330 carry to 300 would pull Fred Funk back from 280 to 252 and me from 260 to 236.  Would this make classic courses better able to withstand the PGA tour?  For people like me it merely means moving up from the blue tees to the white.  I suspect that many on here want a non-linear dial back on the ball.  Maybe 15% at 330, 10% at 300, 5% at 270, and 0% at 240.  Now, that's be an engineering challenge.  And, why would we want to disproprtionately penalize the long hitter.  Is it not a skill to hit it far and stright?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Jones,

I don't know if you played golf when early metal woods were combined with Pinnacle balls to produce an immediate and substantive jump in distance.

One of the interesting by-products was longer drives, but, less control into and around the greens.

What they've now done, in addition to producing longer shafts, lighter and bigger clubheads which allow golfers to swing harder and faster, is to produce a ball that promotes distance, but also offers control.

So, it's not that they've just increased distance, they've now increased it without compromising control.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you play your course from 7,200 yards?  

Yes, up until very recently, all the time.
Now, only if it's not wet.[/color]

Did you 15 years ago?  

Yes.[/color]

It must have been a real slog 15 years ago before the latest quantum leap in technology.  

It was much harder.[/color]

My home course is also 15 years old and has back tees at 7300yds, but I've only played back there maybe 2 or 3 times in 15 years.  I've always played it at 6500 yds and it's enough challenge.  I also score about the same as 40 years ago, but then I was playing a 6,200 yard course then.  

I'd like to think that 40 years of experience and practise might account for some of  my ability to stave off old age.  

I'd like to think so too, but, I'm a realist.[/color]

No doubt technology has helped too.  But it hardly leads to ruination.

That's because your golf course is ONLY 15 years old.

If it was 85 years old, trust me, it would have been ruined, or rendered obsolete by now.[/color]

Regarding your comments about moving tees back to keep LZ's viable, that seems to be a low cost practical approach if you want to worry about challenging the relatively few really long hitters.  

That can only be done if the land is available.

And, it doesn't address the second or approach shot dilema.[/color]

Fortunately my course already has tees back there that even the Nationwide guys have trouble with.  

That's probably because your course is relatively new.[/color]

On your assertion that the long hitter facing a 160 yd second shot is a lot better off due to technology than the shorter hitter, I'm not sure that holds up.  

Two golfers.
160 yards
One hits six irons with a routine swing
The other hits wedges with a routine swing.
I"ll bet on the wedge guy every day of the week.[/color]

For me it would be a hard 7 iron.  Forty years ago it would have been an easy 6 iron.  

Let's see, you've aged forty years, probably gotten out of shape, had some health issues and yet, you've gotten a little longer, and, you're an amateur.   And, you don't think that hi-tech has helped you ?[/color]

The longest hitters today don't generally hit it 160 with a PW -maybe a 9 iron under neutral conditions.  What technology changes do you think make the long hitter relatively longer for that kind of shot.  There's no hi-cor faces on most irons; there's no low spin high launch shots with a PW.

The BALL and the club, including the shaft[/color]  

No doubt many irons now have stronger lofts than 15 or 40 years ago.  Maybe a club stronger in some cases (hence the filling of the gap at the top end of the set with gap wedges).  So that 9 iron from 160 might have been labeled an 8 iron some years ago.  So, a two clubs difference - an 8 vs a 6 iron - for the 160 yd shot between a long and short hitter is the way I remember it 40 years ago, and, the  way it is today.

You keep forgetting about the BALL.
It's a good 3-4 club difference.[/color]

So, architecturally, assuming there's room to move tees back to put features back in play for really long hitters, I think that older course integrity could be maintained.

Could you name 10 classic courses where the architectural integrity has been maintained ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Mike Jones:

From your initial post it appears you don't care if golf courses continue to be stretched but fortunately judging from his report at the recent USGA annual meeting it appears the USGA's Equipment Standards Committee chairman, Jim Vernon, does care and I certainly hope he does not have an epiphany similar to yours.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

"Do you play your course from 7,200 yards?

Yes, up until very recently, all the time.
Now, only if it's not wet.

Did you 15 years ago?

Yes."

Wow, I'm impressed. Even the tour didn't play many 7,200 yard courses 15 years ago.  You must be a long bomber.  Or you get lots of practice hitting fairway woods?  Or your course generally plays downhill, hard and fast?  If the ball was dialled back, would you move up a tee?

"No doubt technology has helped too.  But it hardly leads to ruination.

That's because your golf course is ONLY 15 years old.

If it was 85 years old, trust me, it would have been ruined, or rendered obsolete by now."

Obsolete for whom?  Let me give you an example of a local classic course.  The Scarboro golf club was built in 1924 by Tillinghast.  It held 4 Canadian Opens, the last won by Doug Ford in 1963 at 280.  The course plays at just over 6500 yards.  I played it in competition in 1966.  I played it last year as part of rating it.  My score now was slightly worse than 40 years ago.  For me, it was neither ruined nor obsoleted.  For the PGA tour it no doubt is obsolete at that length, although it would be interesting to see how they would handle the short 4's.  Is it ruined? Not for me or 99.9% of the population; it still provides fun and challenge.  Who cares if it can't hold another PGA event.  It's still good enough to host the City Am next year.

"The BALL and the club, including the shaft "

"You keep forgetting about the BALL.
It's a good 3-4 club difference. "

No doubt graphite shafts make a difference in drivers.  But, has there been any quantum leaps in steel iron shafts?

Are you suggesting that the ball alone is worth 3 or 4 clubs?  Are you suggesting that I would need a 3 iron for 150 yards rather than a 7 iron if ball technology hadn't saved me from my aging?  Have you got any circa 1966 Wilson Staff irons and balata balls I could test out that theory.  I'd hate to think that at 60 I have one foot in the golf graveyard - time for the senior tees.

"Two golfers.
160 yards
One hits six irons with a routine swing
The other hits wedges with a routine swing.
I"ll bet on the wedge guy every day of the week."

So would I (if betting was legal in my jurisdiction ).  Forty years ago long hitters enjoyed an advantage over short hitters on second shots. Today they still do. One of my points was that, if, you could move tees back so that the LZ was in play relatively the same as 40 years ago, then the integrity of the course was closer to being preserved.  There were then, and are now, people who flogged the ball, who could get past the LZ and enjoyed shorter shots to the green.

For my example, Scarboro, it is not possible to move the tees back - there is no room, so it is obsolete and the design integrity is compromised from a PGA Tour point of view.

As a small anecdote, one of the best am players of 40 years ago (he won two US Ams) was able to drive the green on the 17th at Scarboro.  It a slight dogleg of 379 yards now, but might have been 30 yards shorter then, a 30 foot drop from the tee, but the green is fronted by a 50 foot wide river.  I couldn't drive it then, and I can't do it now.  Could the young bombers hit it with 3 wood now?  Probably.  But the risk created by the design would probably keep most from trying.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()