[Patrick_Mucci]

JWK,

Your response seems indicative of the attitude of the "me" generation.

How is golf harder today then it was 20, 40 and 60 years ago ?

It's not.

It's easier.

The lure of the game is the inherent challenge of the game.
The beauty of the game was that you couldn't "buy" a game, you had to develop one.

Maybe golf is down because the challenge has been diminished.

I just read an article in the WSJ that indicated that the average golfer's score is down by about 3 strokes over the last ten (10) years, from 1994 to 2004.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I asked you a question and as per usual you didn't answer it.

Why did you say the USGA was actually discussing INCREASING the spin rate of the golf ball (perhaps via another (6th) Rule or Regulation?).

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you believe that spin rates aren't a topic of discussion amongst the tech and admin staff at the USGA an R&A, then you've been spending too much time plucking the cows and milking the chickens down at Happydale Farms.  

TEPaul,

This is EXACTLY what I said.

Let's not misquote or misinterpret what I said.

That's Jim Nugent's department.

[Glenn Spencer]

The game is definitely easier, I am 15 years older, fatter and less-practiced and I hit the ball better than I ever have. Straighter? Without question I hit it straighter. I used to always remember firing a few out of bounds. I can't remember the last time I have ruined a round by hitting a ball out of bounds. That is not a figure of speech, I actually can't remember. It used to happen all the time. Yes, I was playing well and then I went OB on 13, never happens anymore. The game is still hard for me, but it is easier, what I miss is the thrill of hitting a great shot. I never 'feel' anything anymore, it is just results oriented. 10 feet, oh ok. The pros never hit Greg Norman on 18 at Augusta(1986) shots anymore or Ballesteros on 15(1986). Nobody really chokes anymore off the tee.  If this is more exciting to watch, then I am missing something.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

JWK,

Your response seems indicative of the attitude of the "me" generation.

How is golf harder today then it was 20, 40 and 60 years ago ?

It's not.

It's easier.

The lure of the game is the inherent challenge of the game.
The beauty of the game was that you couldn't "buy" a game, you had to develop one.

Maybe golf is down because the challenge has been diminished.

I just read an article in the WSJ that indicated that the average golfer's score is down by about 3 strokes over the last ten (10) years, from 1994 to 2004.

Patrick -

Paint me any way or color you'd like...

In regards to my comments, rolling back the specs won't provide much benefit IMHO:

"Let's see, rounds are down, participation is down, entry to the game is the highest price point that it has ever been in terms of disposable income which is shrinking due to speculative commodity pressures in oil can other commodities, and now we'll have to replace all of our stuff.

Deal or No Deal?  "I just spent $500 on a driver and it's illegal?"  

Regulation has always been a great catalyst to industry (Dripping sarcasm here), and I really miss shooting balatas up the elevator shaft at 225 yards off of one of the rarest woods (Persimmon) in the world...

Who wins here?

The USGA (If it survives the ensuing litigation)
The equipment companies
Old, established clubs that have very restrictive guest policies whose layouts are museums
The very talented golfer/ball striker who wears out the sweetspots on his Hogan Apex +1's

The losers:

Joe Six Pack golfer who will have to go to the range to figure out how to hit the new/old equipment.
Golf Course Architects who will no longer be needed to renovate/revitalize classic layouts.
Land/Golf Course Community developers who can now sell lots on the abandoned tees that gave them a 7,500 yard layout.

At worse, the line for I & B specs have been drawn in the sand.  The very least that the ruling bodies could do is tell the profiteers:  "No More."

A roll back of specs will be as well received as "New Coke" was in the 1990's."

Patrick -

My point is very clear:  Going backwards on the I & B specs will have a negative impact on the game.  Your argument that people are either leaving the game or not taking it up because it is less challenging is fallacious.  The decline in golfers and rounds played is due to economics, as well as time spent on the course (Looking for hooked and sliced golf balls?) that have them leaving for the exits.  

It has always been easier to buy a game than to increase your fitness or your skill through lessons - no issue here/guilty as charged.

Rolling back the specs and causing everyone to buy new drivers and balls will only enrich the club companies to the detriment of the casual player who plays twice a month.  This player couldn't care less about COR or MOI.  This person just wants to have an enjoyable day.  Patrick, you and I are in the 1% of the country that has a single digit handicap, belongs to a private club(s), and plays 8+ times a month.  Thus our skill levels will make us more appreciative of the modern equipment.  I am getting away with off center hits on my X-Tour irons, but I am mired in the same 3-6 HCP range that I have been in for at least the last 20 years in spite of more time on the range and less groceries to the mouth.

I do think that you are knocking on the right door when you talk about ball spin rates.  If you want to make the game tougher for all players, increase the spin rate by taking some of the polymer off of the ball.  Balls more prone to side spin will certainly make the game more of a challenge (And a challenge to find them and pay for new ones as well).  

The other way that you could make golf more difficult without rolling back the club specs is to make the ball 1.71 or 1.73 inches in diameter.  This ball would me more succeptable to the wind as well as decreasing the available space in the 4.25 inch hole.

I don't think that either solution will be well received by the masses, but those ideas are the two that would be least prone to legal challenges or wholesale defections to other sports.

A main element of my posit here is that bifurification won't help the game because we all want to use what the pros use.  Look at the problems Callaway's ERC II caused a few years ago.  Everyone wants to use the same equipment that the best players use to measure ourselves against their talent.

If we all use the same equipment, then it still is skill.  No different than when Old Tom Morris traded in his featheries to the wrath of Allan Robertson.  Did the new Gutta Percha ball ruin TOC?  No it did not.  It merely lowered the average score.

Sidebar:  Very few people enjoy being beaten up by the golf course unless they are masochists.  The 2 handicap wouldn't break 90 at WFW today.

Sidebar II:  It is ironic that you point out "The Me Generation" as golf is a very solitary game...

Looking forward to your thoughts...

JWK

[henrye]

James is bang on here.  Change my driver & ball specs and I'll go out and put more cash into the pockets of the club & ball manufacturers.  My schedule is busy enough, so regardless of the equipment, I'm not going to all of a sudden spend more time at the range or with my pro.  I'm simply going to hit more out of bounds and increase my score.

I don't care about the guy who hits the ball 300+ yards and has a +3 handicap.  There's only a few thousand of those guys on the planet.

With my low spin golf balls and 400+cc driver, I sure don't think courses like Cypress, Swinley, Rye or Dornoch would be any less enjoyable.

[john_stiles]

You won't have to buy new balls immediately. Most everything is grandfathered in over a period.

Joe Six Packs are dropping because they don't want to pony up for the much beloved new driver to keep up with their buddies. Well, the price of golf is also generally getting higher.

Didn't anyone here play golf in the 80s or early 90s or is everyone, except TePoor and Mucci, below 30.  It was growing then with the antiquated B&I.

Golf balls are much more (relatively) cheap than in the past.  They change the design every year, every year, every year, every year, etc.  

It'll just be a new design like it was last year, and the year before, and the year before that, etc.

Development of new balls, cores, covers, dimples, paint, is already in the budgets now, every year.

And how many dozens of golf balls does anyone have in the garage  anyway ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In regards to my comments, rolling back the specs won't provide much benefit IMHO:

"Let's see, rounds are down, participation is down, entry to the game is the highest price point that it has ever been in terms of disposable income which is shrinking due to speculative commodity pressures in oil can other commodities, and now we'll have to replace all of our stuff.

Deal or No Deal?  "I just spent $500 on a driver and it's illegal?"  

I don't think anyone disputes that costs have escalated to the point where they discourage participation.

But, if you're willing to spend $ 500 on an illegal driver, you're part of, and compounding the problem.

You're telling the manufacturers that you will ignore the rules in favor of a high tech advantage.

That only encourages the acceleration of the very problem you're complaining about.[/color]

Regulation has always been a great catalyst to industry (Dripping sarcasm here), and I really miss shooting balatas up the elevator shaft at 225 yards off of one of the rarest woods (Persimmon) in the world...

Who wins here?

The USGA (If it survives the ensuing litigation)
The equipment companies
Old, established clubs that have very restrictive guest policies whose layouts are museums
Could you identify those clubs ?[/color]
The very talented golfer/ball striker who wears out the sweetspots on his Hogan Apex +1's

The losers:

Joe Six Pack golfer who will have to go to the range to figure out how to hit the new/old equipment.

God forbid that Joe Sixpack has to practice to get better.
You want a store bought game.
I want a game that requires skill and effort.[/color]

Golf Course Architects who will no longer be needed to renovate/revitalize classic layouts.
Architects/clubs will always alter courses.
History has proven this[/color]

Land/Golf Course Community developers who can now sell lots on the abandoned tees that gave them a 7,500 yard layout.

At worse, the line for I & B specs have been drawn in the sand.  The very least that the ruling bodies could do is tell the profiteers:  "No More."

A roll back of specs will be as well received as "New Coke" was in the 1990's."

You and others seem to forget that the ball had been rolled back previously with little or no problem when the R & A adopted the American Ball.[/color]

My point is very clear:  Going backwards on the I & B specs will have a negative impact on the game.  Your argument that people are either leaving the game or not taking it up because it is less challenging is fallacious.  The decline in golfers and rounds played is due to economics, as well as time spent on the course (Looking for hooked and sliced golf balls?) that have them leaving for the exits.  

Nonsense, the ball doesn't hook or slice anything like it used to.

When the R&A went to the American ball NO NEGATIVE IMPACT resulted to those golfers under the R&A.

The economics are tied into the distance problem.
Courses need to be longer, hence more land needs to be purchased and construction costs are higher.

You're willing to shell out $ 500 for an illegal driver, so, I believe I understand where your heart and mind lie.[/color]

It has always been easier to buy a game than to increase your fitness or your skill through lessons - no issue here/guilty as charged.

Rolling back the specs and causing everyone to buy new drivers and balls will only enrich the club companies to the detriment of the casual player who plays twice a month.  


Nonsense,

Balls have a limited shelf life directly proportional to the players ability.   And, who amongst us buys a gross of balls at a time.

A transitional period into the new equipment solves the ball issue in a heart beat.

As to the equipment, why does that matter to you ?
You just bought an illegal driver for $ 500.
Why would you conform on equipment issues, it's not your style.[/color]

This player couldn't care less about COR or MOI.  This person just wants to have an enjoyable day.  Patrick, you and I are in the 1% of the country that has a single digit handicap, belongs to a private club(s), and plays 8+ times a month.  Thus our skill levels will make us more appreciative of the modern equipment.  I am getting away with off center hits on my X-Tour irons, but I am mired in the same 3-6 HCP range that I have been in for at least the last 20 years in spite of more time on the range and less groceries to the mouth.
If anything, the higher handicap player has benefited.
That's why average scores have dropped 3 strokes in just 10 years.

Oversized heads on clubs that prevent slices and hooks and maximize mis-hits have been of great benefit to average to worse than average golfers.

I'm playing a 40+ year old putter, 20+ year old irons.
Only my 3-wood, driver and ball are relatively new.

Recently, I couldn't hit the ball 180 yards, but, I enjoyed the game just as much as I always have.

And, yes, I do want to play better, in fact I'm going to turn off the Open and go to the range for an hour of work after I type this.[/color]

I do think that you are knocking on the right door when you talk about ball spin rates.  If you want to make the game tougher for all players, increase the spin rate by taking some of the polymer off of the ball.  Balls more prone to side spin will certainly make the game more of a challenge (And a challenge to find them and pay for new ones as well).  


We certainly agree on this, even if that idiot-savant TEPaul, insists on keeping his head in the sandbox at Happydale Farms.
[/color]

The other way that you could make golf more difficult without rolling back the club specs is to make the ball 1.71 or 1.73 inches in diameter.  This ball would me more succeptable to the wind as well as decreasing the available space in the 4.25 inch hole.

I don't think that would happen, but it has been proposed.[/color]

I don't think that either solution will be well received by the masses, but those ideas are the two that would be least prone to legal challenges or wholesale defections to other sports.

I think the masses will adhere to the governing bodies.
It's what seperates golf from most other sports, honor.[/color]

A main element of my posit here is that bifurification won't help the game because we all want to use what the pros use.  Look at the problems Callaway's ERC II caused a few years ago.  Everyone wants to use the same equipment that the best players use to measure ourselves against their talent.


Agree, bifurcation isn't the answer.[/color]

If we all use the same equipment, then it still is skill.  No different than when Old Tom Morris traded in his featheries to the wrath of Allan Robertson.  Did the new Gutta Percha ball ruin TOC?  No it did not.  It merely lowered the average score.

Sidebar:  Very few people enjoy being beaten up by the golf course unless they are masochists.  The 2 handicap wouldn't break 90 at WFW today.

Maybe not under the pressure of playing in the U.S. Open, but, a smart 2 handicap could if he managed his game well..

As to being beaten up, that's the simplest problem to solve.
PLAY FROM THE APPROPRIATE TEES.[/COLOR]

Sidebar II:  It is ironic that you point out "The Me Generation" as golf is a very solitary game...

You will note, in the rule book, that the very first section is devoted to "ETIQUETTE" and the "Spirit of the Game".

Believing in and adhering to the "Spirit of the Game" is not harmony with the wants and demands of the "ME Generation"[/color]

Looking forward to your thoughts...

JWK

[Patrick_Mucci]

The game is definitely easier, I am 15 years older, fatter and less-practiced and I hit the ball better than I ever have. Straighter? Without question I hit it straighter. I used to always remember firing a few out of bounds. I can't remember the last time I have ruined a round by hitting a ball out of bounds. That is not a figure of speech, I actually can't remember. It used to happen all the time. Yes, I was playing well and then I went OB on 13, never happens anymore. The game is still hard for me, but it is easier, what I miss is the thrill of hitting a great shot. I never 'feel' anything anymore, it is just results oriented. 10 feet, oh ok. The pros never hit Greg Norman on 18 at Augusta(1986) shots anymore or Ballesteros on 15(1986). Nobody really chokes anymore off the tee.  If this is more exciting to watch, then I am missing something.

Glenn,

I couldn't agree more.

If JWK thinks the game is hard now, he should have played it with shallow faced Power Bilt drivers, forged irons and balls that were out of round and not up to their listed compression before they came out of their wrappings.

Rarely does a ball go awry.
It takes an exaggerated effort to produce hooks and slices.

Ran Morrissett played some matches with me at Sand Hills and he was using hickories, circa 1919 or 1929, yet, he had an enjoyable round and almost broke 80.  He did have the advantage of playing with a Pro V, but, he had a great time, and played a terrific game with those hickories.

The game of golf isn't about instant gratification.

[Glenn Spencer]

The game is definitely easier, I am 15 years older, fatter and less-practiced and I hit the ball better than I ever have. Straighter? Without question I hit it straighter. I used to always remember firing a few out of bounds. I can't remember the last time I have ruined a round by hitting a ball out of bounds. That is not a figure of speech, I actually can't remember. It used to happen all the time. Yes, I was playing well and then I went OB on 13, never happens anymore. The game is still hard for me, but it is easier, what I miss is the thrill of hitting a great shot. I never 'feel' anything anymore, it is just results oriented. 10 feet, oh ok. The pros never hit Greg Norman on 18 at Augusta(1986) shots anymore or Ballesteros on 15(1986). Nobody really chokes anymore off the tee.  If this is more exciting to watch, then I am missing something.

Glenn,

I couldn't agree more.

If JWK thinks the game is hard now, he should have played it with shallow faced Power Bilt drivers, forged irons and balls that were out of round and not up to their listed compression before they came out of their wrappings.

Rarely does a ball awry.
It takes an exaggerated effort to produce hooks and slices.

Ran Morrissett played some matches with me at Sand Hills and he was using hickories, circa 1919 or 1929, yet, he had an enjoyable round and almost broke 80.  He did have the advantage of playing with a Pro V, but, he had a great time, and played a terrific game with those hickories.

The game of golf isn't about instant gratification.

Agreed. The ball stikers are at a huge disadvantage competitively. whether it be professional or at the amateur level. Everything, more or less is a putting and short game contest. The miss-hits are not punished as much and the guy with the short game always has a chance, years ago short game was a way to counteract other problems, now it seems as if it is the best way to win. I think this a problem.

JWK,

IMO, the reason all the new players and high-handicappers are looking for all those balls is because the architects have felt an obligation to put more hazards out there to keep their scores basically the same and really test the good player at the same time. The emphasis on hazards and penalty strokes has become too much in my mind also. No architect used to worry about some guy slicing into the woods 180 off the tee, because he knew he was screwed, now they are hitting 240-250 and there are hazards there.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Fasten your seatbelts kids, it's going to be a long ride...

Patrick -

My Statement:

Deal or No Deal?  "I just spent $500 on a driver and it's illegal?"  

Your response:  I don't think anyone disputes that costs have escalated to the point where they discourage participation.  (Agreed & point is moot)

But, if you're willing to spend $ 500 on an illegal driver, you're part of, and compounding the problem. (Vehemently agree with your statement, and no I don't think that you understood what I was driving (pun fully intended) at).

You're telling the manufacturers that you will ignore the rules in favor of a high tech advantage.

That only encourages the acceleration of the very problem you're complaining about.


Clarification:  What I meant by that statement is that IF the USGA rolls back the driver specs and THEN, a bunch of previously legal drivers are now illegal...(I should have been clearer).

My Statement:

Old, established clubs that have very restrictive guest policies whose layouts are museums

Your question:  
Could you identify those clubs ?

My answer:  
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/COURSES_BY_COUNTRY.html
take your pick...

And generally, I love museums - the older the better.  At least they won't have to purchase surrounding real estate and hire architects to "Modernize" their lay-outs...


My statement:

The losers:

Joe Six Pack golfer who will have to go to the range to figure out how to hit the new/old equipment.

Your statement:  God forbid that Joe Sixpack has to practice to get better.  

My answer:  No, most players today in the mid-handicap range wouldn't know a persimmon wood from a Wilson Staff Blade 2 iron.  He learned with investment cast Ping Eye2's, has two kids, three sport activities for the little precious ones every weekend ("Children are our most prized resource, we wouldn't want to miss a moment of their lives"...sarcasm here), a lawn to mow, a wife to take to dinner, etc.  What do you think gets cut first?  That's right Patrick, the five hour $120 round at Great Country Club For-a-Day.  And since he doesn't have time to play, why bother to practice?  Also, not everyone loves the game as much as we do, but they still like to play now and then...It is these the volume players that keeps the game vibrant and healthy.  They ournumber you and me by at least 10:1.

I, on the other hand, play 36 holes a weekend at least, miss one out of every two Little League games due to my tournaments and business travel schedule.  It's about priorities.

I don't think that because the game is "Less of a Challenge" (as you put it), people are walking away.  GOLF IS AN EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING GAME.  PEOPLE DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY BOUGHT A GAME OR DUG IT OUT OFTHE GROUND THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, THE GAME HAS TO BE REWARDING OR THEY WILL QUIT.  NOW, we both know that GOLF CAN BE THE LEAST REWARDING GAME IN THE UNIVERSE, AND MORE RULE CHANGES AND REGULATIONS WON'T KEEP PEOPLE IN THE TENT.  As an aside, I save money by working out by bench-pressing "The Decisions on The Rules of Golf."  Yes, the game prides itself on honor and etiquette, but 99% of the golfers would fail a rules test miserably...

Your statement:  

You want a store bought game.
I want a game that requires skill and effort.

My answer:  Patrick, please do not characterize me in that light of purchased skill at the expense of 40 years of effort to get my game.  Since I now have two kids, my practice time is limited, but I want skill rewarded as much as you do.  

I do have an abundance of weaponry (I only carry 14 at any one time), but at the end of the day, I swing the clubs, not the other way around.  They don't swing themselves.  Better technology is available to everyone.  Why not use it?  Is it some form of gothic hairshirt to say "I would have beaten you had I not elected to play with my persimmons, blades and balatas" in some sort of Calvanistic pennance?  The rules officials check your bag and take your scorecard at the end of the round.  There is no box on the scorecard that states:  "If you used older, inferior equipment that requires more precise skill during today's competition, please check this box and deduct two shots for Moral Superiority from your score"...


Your statement:  Golf Course Architects who will no longer be needed to renovate/revitalize classic layouts.
Architects/clubs will always alter courses.
History has proven this

My answer:

Agreed to some extent, but if the ball is rolled back, you won't see as many new back tees going in.

Your statement:  Nonsense, the ball doesn't hook or slice anything like it used to.  

Agreed.

Your Statement:  When the R&A went to the American ball NO NEGATIVE IMPACT resulted to those golfers under the R&A.  -

My Answer:  It is a fact that the 1.68" American ball doesn't cut through the wind as well as the 1.62" ball did.  This fact contradicts your argument of NO NEGATIVE IMPACT when the R&A went to the American Ball.  But I am not going to argue "How many Angels can fit on the head of a pin" when we have bigger fish to fry here...

Your statement:

The economics are tied into the distance problem.
Courses need to be longer, hence more land needs to be purchased and construction costs are higher.

My answer:  Agreed, and there is very little distance gain off of the irons.  There are also higher maintainance costs as well.

Your Statement:

You're willing to shell out $ 500 for an illegal driver, so, I believe I understand where your heart and mind lie.

My answer:  I believe I clarified the issue above, but I will state my point again:  IF the USGA rolls back the CLUB specs, many of us will have illegal clubs.  

I HAVE NEVER USED AN ILLEGAL CLUB IN MY LIFE, NOR WILL I EVER DO SO.  

Kindly confirm that you now understand where I am coming from so that you can fully "understand where my heart and mind lies."  You don't owe me an apology since I don't think that I made it clear enough to you as I could have that it was a roll back of Club specs was what I was referring to.  And please feel free to investigate my equipment and balls each and everytime that we play so that you have no doubt that I am using USGA Conforming balls and clubs.  I don't want to be tarred with a "Do you still beat your wife" type of statement when I have always been in adherence to the I & B rules.


Your statement:  Recently, I couldn't hit the ball 180 yards, but, I enjoyed the game just as much as I always have.

And, yes, I do want to play better, in fact I'm going to turn off the Open and go to the range for an hour of work after I type this.

My response:  I am glad that you still enjoy the game.  One of my challenges ahead will be to continue to play within myself of today, not as of my youth.  I wish that I could join you on the range, but I'll have to settle for a rare round of Hit and Giggle with the wife and the two 7:30am rounds this weekend.  I did manage to squeeze in some putting practice in the early morning prior to Memorial Day.

In regards to the etiquette preceding the rules, I made that very point to my 6 year old last Sunday.  Maybe we're a little closer here than we think...

Every generation has difficulty with its post-adolescent children coming of age.  I have my own set of peeves in regards the current 18-34 year old set, as my parents did with my generation when I was that age.  Respecting the game depends a great deal upon who and how you learned the game from.  I am glad to have had a great set of teachers and role models who were patient enough to wait for me to evolve and mature through their examples.  I hope to imbue my children with that sense of respect and tradition for the game as well.  I think that the "Me Generation" will eventually get it, but they will be establishing some traditions of their own.  Now where did I leave my Red Coat and Hickories???  It was so much easier when there were only 11 rules.  

I hope that I was able to clarify my thoughts so that you now understand my original statements.

JWK

p.s./FYI:  http://www.usga.org/playing/clubs_and_balls/driver/non-conforming_driver_list.html

My driver, a MacGregor NVG2 TOUR 8 degree Model is not on the list above and therefore, legal...

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

The game is definitely easier, I am 15 years older, fatter and less-practiced and I hit the ball better than I ever have. Straighter? Without question I hit it straighter. I used to always remember firing a few out of bounds. I can't remember the last time I have ruined a round by hitting a ball out of bounds. That is not a figure of speech, I actually can't remember. It used to happen all the time. Yes, I was playing well and then I went OB on 13, never happens anymore. The game is still hard for me, but it is easier, what I miss is the thrill of hitting a great shot. I never 'feel' anything anymore, it is just results oriented. 10 feet, oh ok. The pros never hit Greg Norman on 18 at Augusta(1986) shots anymore or Ballesteros on 15(1986). Nobody really chokes anymore off the tee.  If this is more exciting to watch, then I am missing something.

Glenn,

I couldn't agree more.

If JWK thinks the game is hard now, he should have played it with shallow faced Power Bilt drivers, forged irons and balls that were out of round and not up to their listed compression before they came out of their wrappings.

Rarely does a ball awry.
It takes an exaggerated effort to produce hooks and slices.

Ran Morrissett played some matches with me at Sand Hills and he was using hickories, circa 1919 or 1929, yet, he had an enjoyable round and almost broke 80.  He did have the advantage of playing with a Pro V, but, he had a great time, and played a terrific game with those hickories.

The game of golf isn't about instant gratification.

Pat & Glenn:

Guess what?

I made my first eagle from 165 yards with at Power Bilt 5 wood from the left rough in 1973 at the age of 12...and yes, sometimes instant gratification is EXACTLY what the game is about, especially with a drilled Hogan Apex II 1 iron to 10 feet.

Does anyone remeber the 1974 Maxfli's that went oblong when the windings exploded or the hexagonal Royals?  How about the metal circle plates we used to carry in our bags to make sure the ball was still round?

JWK

[Glenn Spencer]

The game is definitely easier, I am 15 years older, fatter and less-practiced and I hit the ball better than I ever have. Straighter? Without question I hit it straighter. I used to always remember firing a few out of bounds. I can't remember the last time I have ruined a round by hitting a ball out of bounds. That is not a figure of speech, I actually can't remember. It used to happen all the time. Yes, I was playing well and then I went OB on 13, never happens anymore. The game is still hard for me, but it is easier, what I miss is the thrill of hitting a great shot. I never 'feel' anything anymore, it is just results oriented. 10 feet, oh ok. The pros never hit Greg Norman on 18 at Augusta(1986) shots anymore or Ballesteros on 15(1986). Nobody really chokes anymore off the tee.  If this is more exciting to watch, then I am missing something.

Glenn,

I couldn't agree more.

If JWK thinks the game is hard now, he should have played it with shallow faced Power Bilt drivers, forged irons and balls that were out of round and not up to their listed compression before they came out of their wrappings.

Rarely does a ball awry.
It takes an exaggerated effort to produce hooks and slices.

Ran Morrissett played some matches with me at Sand Hills and he was using hickories, circa 1919 or 1929, yet, he had an enjoyable round and almost broke 80.  He did have the advantage of playing with a Pro V, but, he had a great time, and played a terrific game with those hickories.

The game of golf isn't about instant gratification.

Pat & Glenn:

Guess what?

I made my first eagle from 165 yards with at Power Bilt 5 wood from the left rough in 1973 at the age of 12...and yes, sometimes instant gratification is EXACTLY what the game is about, especially with a drilled Hogan Apex II 1 iron to 10 feet.

Does anyone remeber the 1974 Maxfli's that went oblong when the windings exploded or the hexagonal Royals?  How about the metal circle plates we used to carry in our bags to make sure the ball was still round?

JWK

Nothing against your eagle, but for me, if I shoot 82 and it includes a hole-out for eagle on #6, the last thing that eagle is going to do is gratify me. If I shoot 72 and hit the ball mostly where I am trying to, with no eagles, I will be satisfied.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Glenn -

I agree that a solid ball striking round is more gratifying than one purely struck shot.  I was merely pointing out that I come from the persimmon/forged era.

And to me nothing is purer in the game than a flushed 1 iron from a slightly hooked sloped lie to a tightly bunkered green with a large flagpole to the right of the green...

JWK

[TEPaul]

Patrick---on your first post on this thread you said;

"With discussions on limiting shaft lengths and increasing spin rates....."

Now, I'm going to ask you one more time since you've implied the USGA is conducting discussions about increasing spin rates---where and when did you hear they were discussing or considering increasing spin rates?? Do you think you're capable of answering that simple question without evasion?

I, for one, think increasing spin rate (or putting a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate of the golf ball) is the right thing to do---eg a most important and potentially effective thing to do to perhaps reign in the excessive distance of high swing speed players but I'm simply asking you where or when you heard the USGA was discussing increasing spin rates?

For instance, are you aware that the R&A/USGA has never had any rule or reg on the amount of spin rate a golf ball can have?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick---on your first post on this thread you said;

"With discussions on limiting shaft lengths and increasing spin rates....."

That is correct.  I did state that shaft lengths and spin rates are topics of discussion[/color]

Now, I'm going to ask you one more time since you've implied the USGA is conducting discussions about increasing spin rates---

I didn't imply that, you infered that.[/color]

where and when did you hear they were discussing or considering increasing spin rates?? Do you think you're capable of answering that simple question without evasion?

I, for one, think increasing spin rate (or putting a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate of the golf ball) is the right thing to do---eg a most important and potentially effective thing to do to perhaps reign in the excessive distance of high swing speed players but I'm simply asking you where or when you heard the USGA was discussing increasing spin rates?

For instance, are you aware that the R&A/USGA has never had any rule or reg on the amount of spin rate a golf ball can have?

That's because the manufacturers, in their quest for distance, are always looking for ways to gain more distance, and, the USGA and R&A are defensively reactionary, after the fact.

The USGA was concerned with acceleration and never gave a thought to spin rates until the manufacturers figured out that spin rates affected distance, as does launch angles, two distance components that NOONE thought about until very recently.

However, you'd have to be naive to believe that the USGA isn't aware of the influence that spin accounts for.
And, I believe it would be irresponsible of the USGA to ignore discussing spin rates, don't you. ?

If you'd ask Dick Rugge if spin rates have been a topic of discussion, I believe that you'll get an affirmative answer.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Now, I'm going to ask you one more time since you've implied the USGA is conducting discussions about increasing spin rates---

I didn't imply that, you infered that.

Patrick:

Read the last sentence of the first post on this thread---your post. I'm going to ask you again----where did you hear that the USGA is discussing INCREASING spin rate?

It's a simple and straightforward question and the fact that you seem incapable of answering it is pretty indicative.

Again, WHERE did you hear the USGA is discussing INCREASING the spin rate of the golf ball?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You do realize, don't you, that your failure to answer my simple question is pretty indicative of your modus operandi on here? There are a growing number of people on this website who feel having a viable discussion with you on here on most any subject is becoming a virtual impossibility. Why is that Patrick?  

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

According to the WF preview issue, Rugge is looking at Grooves.

Feeling groovy...

JWK

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci made a statement he can't back up and consequently he continues to avoid answering my question about it. Therefore Patrick Mucci is nothing but a ultra weasely Whiffensnoozer. But that should surprise noone on this webstie.

[Bryan Izatt]

When you two guys stop fencing can you answer me this?  If Mickelson (or others) was playing one of your desired regulated minimum spin balls, how much further offline would he have been all day.  Would he have cleared the hospitality tent on 18?  What happened to the modern ball that you can beat on and it'll still go straight?  I saw a lot of shots from the leaders that were 30 or 40 yards or more off the centre of the fairway.

A second question for Patrick on the distance loss with off-centre hits on a persimmon driver.  You said that the number quoted was based on being 7/8" off centre.  I measured the centredness of my hits today and the hits varied by maybe +/- 7/16" from the centre.  I'm certainly no pro, so I'm wondering how relevant it is that you lose significant distance if you hit the ball 7/8" off centre with a persimmon driver.  I'd guess only weekend warriors would be that far off.  Secondarily, I'd guess that 7/8" off centre on a pesimmon driver would be pretty close to off the face altogether.  It's not likely that any self-respecting pro would ever be that far off centre, persimmon driver or no.  They certainly don't miss by that much with a fairway wood (modern metal)  that are smaller than persimmon heads used to be.  

Perhaps this is a useless tidbit of information from the USGA.

[TEPaul]

"When you two guys stop fencing can you answer me this?  If Mickelson (or others) was playing one of your desired regulated minimum spin balls, how much further offline would he have been all day.  Would he have cleared the hospitality tent on 18?  What happened to the modern ball that you can beat on and it'll still go straight?  I saw a lot of shots from the leaders that were 30 or 40 yards or more off the centre of the fairway."

Bryan:

Anybody on here who tries to seriously claim that these new age balls go much straighter has been as blind as a bat for the last ten years at least.

Deane Beman made a very elaborate plea that a higher spin rate golf ball would go sideways much easier than the balls they are using today. I asked that of the USGA Tech Center and the reply was that for high swing speed players the trajectory (up and down) would be the primary flight pattern that would be effected----far more than side to side.

Of course the self taught tech geniuses on this website such as David Moriarty may try to refute that (perhaps even offering their own home-made graphs and some tour stats) but something tells me the USGA Tech Center knows better than they do.  

On the question of off-center hits and lose of distance of persimmon compared to metal woods I don't think that anyone who understands technology has ever denied there's quite a big difference between persimmon and the entire phenomenon of "perimeter weighted" golf clubs of which metal woods are but one example.

I know when I played a lot of tournament golf and switched from persimmon to metal woods (and from classic irons to PINGS) I basically stopped practicing as much as I had simply because it didn't really seem like I needed to as much with perimeter weighted golf clubs. In the end that sort of caught up to me though.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I'm not disputing that a higher spin ball would go more off line, or that perimeter weighted clubs are more forgiving.  Maybe just the degree of the effect.  

Clearly the current ball does not go close to straight all the time.  So, how much worse would a higher spinning ball be?  Some quantification.  Another question for which there is no definitive answer, I suppose.  

On the effect of off-centre hits, I wonder why the USGA did it at 7/8"'.  Why not something more reasonable like +/- a half inch, or a quarter inch.  Perhaps Mucci's sources could answer that.  

[Peter_Collins]

Easier still does not equal easy.  

According to Richard Knuth's website http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/numbers.html only 4.5 million of the nation's 26.9 million golfers has a handicap.  The average handicap for a man is 16.1 for a woman 28.9.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Mickelson (or others) was playing one of your desired regulated minimum spin balls, how much further offline would he have been all day.

It would depend on how many trees go in the way.[/color]

Would he have cleared the hospitality tent on 18?  

That's a function of altitude not curvature.[/color]

What happened to the modern ball that you can beat on and it'll still go straight?  

Nothing,  It went straight left, exactly where he pushed it.[/color]

I saw a lot of shots from the leaders that were 30 or 40 yards or more off the centre of the fairway.

Rather than discuss vague references, cite each shot that was 30-40 yards off the fairway center line and we can analyze how it got there.

Noone ever said that golfers stopped pushing and pulling shots, only that ball flight is straighter, versus balls from 20-30-40-50 years ago.[/color]

A second question for Patrick on the distance loss with off-centre hits on a persimmon driver.  You said that the number quoted was based on being 7/8" off centre.  I measured the centredness of my hits today and the hits varied by maybe +/- 7/16" from the centre.  

I'm certainly no pro, so I'm wondering how relevant it is that you lose significant distance if you hit the ball 7/8" off centre with a persimmon driver.  

It's very relevant.
Balls hit off center with modern clubs and balls continue to fly much straighter and much farther than their counterparts of 20-30-40-50 years ago.[/color]

I'd guess only weekend warriors would be that far off.


Then youlve guessed WRONG.[/color]

Secondarily, I'd guess that 7/8" off centre on a pesimmon driver would be pretty close to off the face altogether.  


Then, you've guessed WRONG again.

7/8th of an inch off center is nowhere near the perimeter of the face of a persimmon driver.
In FACT, 7/8ths of an inch is still within the insert.

It would seem that your knowledge of persimmon drivers is extremely limited.  Have you ever seen one ?[/color]

It's not likely that any self-respecting pro would ever be that far off centre, persimmon driver or no.  

Self-respecting pros are that far off center.

On most persimmon drivers 7/8ths of an inch is still within the confines of the insert, and far removed from the perimeter of the club face.

I retrieved some old persimmon drivers from storage.
They include.

H&B Citation strata
Toney Penna Model 12
Ben Hogan
MacGregor M 85 W Eye-O-Matic
Power Bilt Citation.

On most of these drivers, 7/8ths of an inch is still within the insert.
On all of the drivers, just low of center, 7/8ths of an inch is totally within the insert.

What you fail to understand is that you can swing as hard as you want with a modern driver and that mis-hits will experience little in the way of decreased performance.

Swinging a driver circa 1964 that hard would propel a mis-hit out of bounds or several fairways over.[/color]

They certainly don't miss by that much with a fairway wood (modern metal)  that are smaller than persimmon heads used to be.  

Who, the top 150 players in the world ?

Or, perhaps you saw Mickelson whiff a fairway wood on # 5 on Sunday, or another player whiff a fairway wood on # 18 on saturday.

Try expanding your views beyond the top 150 golfers in the world.

Yesterday, I hit a drive 30 yards farther than any drive I've ever hit on that particular hole in 50 years.
Did I get younger, stronger, healthier and more athletic this spring ?[/color]

Perhaps this is a useless tidbit of information from the USGA.


Or, perhaps it's like higher mathematics, and some just don't understand it.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()