[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Quote from Patrick Mucci:

"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 ?"

Perhaps it was all of the practicing that you did from Thursday through Sunday!!!




Maybe golf is safer now that we can only miss it 50 yards off line...


Trying to poke the tiger with a stick through the cage...


JWK

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWK,

I've never practiced "driving"

I limit my practice to irons only, as I'm looking for tempo and contact.

I find hitting a driver on a range to be counterproductive.
You tend to swing hard, without having the narrowed perspective presented by a fairway.

I do swing my driver with its headcover on, twice, to slow my backswing and create tempo, prior to teeing off on the first hole.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

JWK,

I've never practiced "driving"

I limit my practice to irons only, as I'm looking for tempo and contact.

I find hitting a driver on a range to be counterproductive.
You tend to swing hard, without having the narrowed perspective presented by a fairway.

I do swing my driver with its headcover on, twice, to slow my backswing and create tempo, prior to teeing off on the first hole.

Patrick -

I am just the opposite.  After 20-25 70% SW's for tempo,  I'll go exclusively with the driver to widen and lengthen my arc as well as shallowing out the angle of attack.

Chicks dig the ground game...

JWK

[Peter_Collins]

"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 ?"

So now that this game is so easy I guess you're what a plus three or four handicap?

[TEPaul]

"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.  

Bryan:

Maybe you misunderstood me. I did ask the Tech Center how much more high spin rate balls would be hit off line compared to the lower spinning balls today and I was told that they would go off line somewhat more but nothing compared to the difference in the shape of the up and down trajectory of high spinning balls vs low spinning balls when hit by a high swing speed player.

Do you know what I mean by that?

If not I'd be glad to explain what I meant because in that trajectory difference of high spin balls vs low spin balls when hit by high swing speed players just could be a significant part of the solution to this distance increase on the part of high swing speed players since the onset of their use of low spin balls.

[Paul_Turner]

A Tusnami?  Not unless the golfers become much stronger.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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 ?"

So now that this game is so easy I guess you're what a plus three or four handicap?

Peter Collins,

Now that I've mostly recovered from a recent bump in the road I expect my handicap to return to its former status, which ranged from +2 to 2 for the last 40 years.

Having shot 4 under par from the back tees at GCGC last friday and rounds that should have been in the 60's on saturday and sunday, I'd say I'm well on my way, despite being 40 years older and nowhere near the shape I was in 20-30 and 40 years ago.  

Despite a great number of health issues, from broken wrists to dupuytrens syndrome to a current torn rotator cuff, combined with some other ailments, my game is in a state that could not be achieved with balls and equipment used 20-30-40 years ago.

That you and others are in denial with respect to the impact hi-tech equipment has had on the game is mind boggling.

[Edward Coombes]

If its a tsunami that makes the strategic qualities of the classic courses relevant to the pros, forcing players to have to think about how best to attack each hole as well as the need to work the ball with your own swing, then bring it on.
I'm pleased to hear that the USGA have at least got these issues on the table.
I hope you're correct.
 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Do you even realize what my question to you on this thread is---which you continuously refuse to answer?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"m keenly aware of the question you've asked, amended and distorted, along with my answers.

I was hoping to get a very specific answer, including quotes, from an irrefutable USGA source when I was at WF on Saturday.  However, I missed him.  I'm hoping to get those answers for you when the Women's Open is held at Newport.

However, you acknowledged in a previous post that you were aware that spin rates are a topic of discussion within the USGA so I don't know why you repeatedly ask this question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's my belief (from what I've been able to garner from some reputable tech people about the flight characteristics of golf balls) that if a sixth regulation were introduced into the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regulations putting a limitation on the MINIMUM allowable spin rate of a golf ball the effects on distance production would be most interesting.


TEPaul,

It would seem as though you've answered your own question.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
It would seem as though you've answered your own question."

Patrick;

Perhaps I did answer some question of my own but you have yet to answer my question to you which is where and from whom did you hear that the USGA has been discussing INCREASING the spin rate of the golf ball?

On the first post in this thread you said;

“With discussions on limiting shaft lengths and increasing spin rates, does anyone see a Tsunami forming on the Horizon?"

You made that statement and I'm asking you where and from whom you heard the USGA is discussing INCREASING the spin rate of the golf ball?

The fact that you refuse to answer that simple question and that you just keep avoiding it in one way or the other is becoming pretty indicative. Did you just make that up yourself?  

[Peter_Collins]

"That you and others are in denial with respect to the impact hi-tech equipment has had on the game is mind boggling."

I am not in denial of the impact hi-tech equipment has had on golf.  However, for 99% of the golfers that fact golf is easier does not mean golf is easy.  As I posted yesteday the average male golfers handicap is 16.1 and for females 26.8. with only 1 in 4 golfers even having a handicap.  

Where we  really differ is whether making the game easier for the average golfer is a bad thing.  I see equipment which makes the game more accessible (easier if you prefer) as being good for the game, you see it as destroying the tradition of the game.  I love the game of golf for a thousand reasons, and hope that many others will continue to play and begin to play the game.  Making an inaccessible game more inaccessible by rolling back equipment, and therefore making the game harder to learn and hard to play, is not in the best interest of the game in my opinion.

If the USGA wants to mandate a tournament ball for its competitions I'm 100% in favor.  Keeping the great old courses relevant without having to increase length to 7500 yards is a worthwile cause.  Rolling back equipment in the interest of making the game more difficult, or for nostalgic reasons is not in the best interest of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am not in denial of the impact hi-tech equipment has had on golf.  However, for 99% of the golfers that fact golf is easier does not mean golf is easy.  As I posted yesteday the average male golfers handicap is 16.1 and for females 26.8. with only 1 in 4 golfers even having a handicap.  

According to an article in last weeks WSJ, handicaps have come down three strokes in the period, 1994 to 2004.

Where we  really differ is whether making the game easier for the average golfer is a bad thing.  

I believe it is.
The lure of the game is its inherent challenge, and when you diminish that challenge, you make it less appealing.

I see equipment which makes the game more accessible (easier if you prefer) as being good for the game, you see it as destroying the tradition of the game.

How does hi-tech equipment, which costs a bundle, make the game more accessible ?

It's just the reverse.
High costs are driving golfers away from the game, and/or discouraging new golfers to take up the game.

I love the game of golf for a thousand reasons, and hope that many others will continue to play and begin to play the game.  

Making an inaccessible game more inaccessible by rolling back equipment, and therefore making the game harder to learn and hard to play, is not in the best interest of the game in my opinion.

Than how do you explain the decline in participation in golf at the same time that the game has been made easier ?

And, how is the game being made inaccessible vis a vis a roll back ?  The two issues aren't remotely connected.

If the USGA wants to mandate a tournament ball for its competitions I'm 100% in favor.  Keeping the great old courses relevant without having to increase length to 7500 yards is a worthwile cause.  

Rolling back equipment in the interest of making the game more difficult, or for nostalgic reasons is not in the best interest of the game.

Of course it is.

Rolling back the I&B isn't for the intended purpose of making the game more difficult, that's just a bi-product.

The purpose is to return skill as the primary foundation for playing the game, and not store bought equipment.

How do you explain golf's heightened popularity at a time when the game was harder to learn and play ?

The game you champion will never reward the golfer with the joy of hitting a tremendous variety of golf shots.

Hale Irwin and others have stated that PGA Tour Pros have to employ exaggerated techniques in order to get the ball to move like it used to, and in most cases, it can't move like it used to.

Golf should be returned to shot making, and not in the direction of rewarding a mad bomber and slash game that's becoming prevalent at ALL LEVELS.

[JohnV]

Pat,

How can you be so sure that making the game easier is making the game less appealing?  And if it is, does it stop people from taking up the game or does it make them quit because, "Gee, golf is just too easy for me, I'd turn pro, but I like working in at WalMart"?

The cost of the equipment might stop some from taking up the game, but you can go to TGW.com among others and find entire sets including a bag for well under $200.00.

The cost of playing a round might stop some, but there are plenty of courses out there where greens fees are under $30 (at least in Western PA).

The time it takes to play and the amount of effort to learn how to play are probably at least as big a factor in why people don't take up the game or quit playing as cost.  It isn't that it is easy, it is that it is too hard and time consuming for people to want to devote the time and energy to get good at it that makes them quit.

As for your comment about Hale Irwin and others, if they want to shape the ball so much, why don't they get the ball manufacturers to make them a ball that can be shaped?  Titleist, Calloway and Nike would make whatever kind of balls the players on tour want if they asked for it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can you be so sure that making the game easier is making the game less appealing?  

JVB,

I asked him to explain the apparent contradiction in his position, however, as a general rule, as games get easier, they lose their appeal.  It's the inherent challenge that creates interest, not the ability to master the game in three easy lessons.

And if it is, does it stop people from taking up the game or does it make them quit because, "Gee, golf is just too easy for me, I'd turn pro, but I like working in at WalMart"?

Making the game easy, and becoming an expert player in the top .00000001 percent are two different things.

The cost of the equipment might stop some from taking up the game, but you can go to TGW.com among others and find entire sets including a bag for well under $200.00.

So the new  Pro Fusion driver with the Fujikawa shaft can now be purchased for $ 25 ?  Wow.
How much are Pro Vx balls per dozen ?

Few want less than the newest, best equipment.

The cost of playing a round might stop some, but there are plenty of courses out there where greens fees are under $30 (at least in Western PA).

What about in the metropolitan New York area ?

The time it takes to play and the amount of effort to learn how to play are probably at least as big a factor in why people don't take up the game or quit playing as cost.  

I'd agree, rounds in excess of 3-4 hours are hurting the game.


It isn't that it is easy, it is that it is too hard and time consuming for people to want to devote the time and energy to get good at it that makes them quit.

Ah, the instant gratification argument.
The, "I want to buy my game" philosophy.

As for your comment about Hale Irwin and others, if they want to shape the ball so much, why don't they get the ball manufacturers to make them a ball that can be shaped?  Titleist, Calloway and Nike would make whatever kind of balls the players on tour want if they asked for it.

Because the MONEY is in the long ball.
Golf is becoming a power game, like tennis.

And, the advantage, with specialty clubs and wedges, is to hit the ball as far as you can, then slash it to the green from the rough, and if you're lucky enough to hit the fairway, you've got an additional advantage.

[Bryan Izatt]

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]

Good to see your sense of humour is still alive and well on the points above.

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]

Are you suggesting that all the errant shots were pushes or pulls?  No slices or hooks?  Hard to believe.  Not even you believe that do you?

I suppose Phil was stupider than he thought, thinking that he could cut a shot around the trees.  Maybe it was the straight modern ball that did him in.

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]

Nah.  How would you analyze it anyway.  

From the satellite maps, WFW appears to have corridors that are around 50 yards wide.  As a visitor there, can you confirm that?  If anybody hit the tree line in the air they were at least 25 yards off centre and going further unless the trees knocked them down. Are you saying it wasn't common for the players to hit it in the trees?  I can't say for sure since the TV coverage only provides coverage of a very limited number of the drives of the best scorers.  Phil seemed to be in the trees on more than one occasion.


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]

Really?  What evidence do you have about the centreness of driver hits by touring pros, or good amateur players?  I've used impact tape to see where I hit the ball on the face and maybe 1 time in 20 I might get as far as 7/8" off centre. Do you have any idea on  how off centre your hits are?  

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]

Sure I played with them for 30 years, but unfortunately I don't still have any of them.  What are the dimensions of the face - height and width?   How wide is the insert (the beginning of downhill technological slide; would you regulate drivers back to pure persimmon, or are plastic insert and brass screws all right?)?  My modern drivers are 3" high by 4" wide.  Being 7/8" off centre would put the ball near the quarter point of the face and the outer edge of the ball near the outer edge of the club.

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.

I don't misunderstand that.  Where did you get that impression from?

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

What evidence do you have for that statement?  Or are you just speculating?

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.

Mickelson whiffed it because it was down in 5" rough.       Another stupid decision.

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]

And, did it give you a rise?  Why did it happen yesterday?  Were you using a new driver?  A new ball?  How long have you been playing modern equipment on that hole?

The ball goes further today than in our deep dark pasts.  I hit one 305 yesterday, a hot day, with a bit of tailwind, on hard bent grass fairways.  I got the right launch angle on it with a new driver and shaft combination.  A shaft, by the way, that is advertised to reduce the spin rate of the ball by 20%.  Felt good.  Didn't destroy the challenge of my game.  Didn't destroy the strategic intent of the hole in question.

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]

I've done higher mathematics.  It makes me skeptical of anecdotal information about 7/8" off centre hits on persimmon heads.

[Bryan Izatt]

"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.  

Bryan:

Maybe you misunderstood me. I did ask the Tech Center how much more high spin rate balls would be hit off line compared to the lower spinning balls today and I was told that they would go off line somewhat more but nothing compared to the difference in the shape of the up and down trajectory of high spinning balls vs low spinning balls when hit by a high swing speed player.

Do you know what I mean by that?

If not I'd be glad to explain what I meant because in that trajectory difference of high spin balls vs low spin balls when hit by high swing speed players just could be a significant part of the solution to this distance increase on the part of high swing speed players since the onset of their use of low spin balls.

Tom,

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.  Is the USGA saying there will be a significant impact on trajectory (creating more of an upshoot rather than flat trajectory) while having a more minor effect on hook and slice action?  That seems quite possible to me.  

I do, however, still have my doubts about regulating minimum spin alone as a panacea for the distance issue.  My new driver shaft purports to lower spin by 20%.  The ball manufacturers may find ways to have the initial spin rate decay faster in flight.  There may be other ways to accomodate higher minimum spin rates and still achieve long and flat trajectories.  I believe that these kind of considerations are what might be causing the USGA to take so long to come to ground on this.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I'm not sure I get what you're saying.  Is the USGA saying there will be a significant impact on trajectory (creating more of an upshoot rather than flat trajectory) while having a more minor effect on hook and slice action?  That seems quite possible to me."

Basically yes. With a higher spin rate ball high swing speed players would hit shots on basically the same trajectory they used to with the old high spinning three piece balls. That trajectory is not a distance enhancing trajectory like these new low spinning balls produce.

I'm not saying this is the only solution. If all the manufacturers are producing prototype balls to be analyzed by the USGA that go 15 and 25 yards less far there may be many ways it can be done. Obviously that's why the USGA asked all the ball manufacturers to submit these prototype balls to be analyzed by the USGA Tech Center.

[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]

Good to see your sense of humour is still alive and well on the points above.

Never lose your sense of humor ![/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]

Are you suggesting that all the errant shots were pushes or pulls?  No slices or hooks?  Hard to believe.  Not even you believe that do you?

The modern ball can be sliced or hooked, but it takes an exaggerated swing to do so.

I suppose Phil was stupider than he thought, thinking that he could cut a shot around the trees.  Maybe it was the straight modern ball that did him in.

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]

Nah.  How would you analyze it anyway.  

From the satellite maps, WFW appears to have corridors that are around 50 yards wide.  As a visitor there, can you confirm that?  If anybody hit the tree line in the air they were at least 25 yards off centre and going further unless the trees knocked them down. Are you saying it wasn't common for the players to hit it in the trees?  I can't say for sure since the TV coverage only provides coverage of a very limited number of the drives of the best scorers.  Phil seemed to be in the trees on more than one occasion.

You have to understand the nature of the trees at WFW.

For example, they hug the line off the tee on # 8 and # 18 as well as a few other holes.

If you tee it up from the right side of the 8th tee and left side of the 18th tee and hit a straight ball just a little right or left, you'll be in the trees on each hole.

You can't go by the aerials.
You have to stand in back of each tee to get the proper perspective on the tee shot.[/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]

Really?  What evidence do you have about the centreness of driver hits by touring pros, or good amateur players?  I've used impact tape to see where I hit the ball on the face and maybe 1 time in 20 I might get as far as 7/8" off centre. Do you have any idea on  how off centre your hits are?

Sure.

I know when I"ve hit it in the toe, heel, high or low, and I don't need tape to tell me.  On irons, especially from the rough, the grass on the club face tells the tale.

I've played with PGA Tour Pros and good amateur players for the last 40 years and I can assure you that they hit off center shots.

What Glenn Spencer stated should have rung a bell with you.
He stated that he rarely goes OB any more.
I've also noticed this amongst good players.
Their shot patterns are tighter.

As to your 1 in 20 statement.

Would you be willing to give me 20 to 1 odds for $ 10,000 per swing ?[/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]

Sure I played with them for 30 years, but unfortunately I don't still have any of them.  What are the dimensions of the face - height and width?   How wide is the insert (the beginning of downhill technological slide;
These were standard, not custom made drivers.
If needed I'll measure the faces thru the center, but, what purpose will it serve ?   You were so unfamiliar with persimmon drivers that you stated mis-hits 7/8ths of an inch were almost off the club face when they were still within the margins of the inserts.


would you regulate drivers back to pure persimmon, or are plastic insert and brass screws all right?)?  My modern drivers are 3" high by 4" wide.  Being 7/8" off centre would put the ball near the quarter point of the face and the outer edge of the ball near the outer edge of the club.

It's a little late now, but, like in major league baseball I would have outlawed metal woods.

At this point, I think you have to greatly reduce the size of the clubhead and the shaft length.  This will reduce swing speed.[/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.

I don't misunderstand that.  Where did you get that impression from?

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

What evidence do you have for that statement?  Or are you just speculating?

50+ years of personal experience and observations, linked with the fact that a 43.5 inch persimmon driver with D-3 swing weight would be almost impossible to swing as fast as modern day clubs.[/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.

Mickelson whiffed it because it was down in 5" rough.       Another stupid decision.

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]

And, did it give you a rise?  Why did it happen yesterday?  Were you using a new driver?  A new ball?  How long have you been playing modern equipment on that hole?


It surprised me.
It happened yesterday because that's when I played the hole
An old Pro V1.
50+ years[/color]

The ball goes further today than in our deep dark pasts.  I hit one 305 yesterday, a hot day, with a bit of tailwind, on hard bent grass fairways.  I got the right launch angle on it with a new driver and shaft combination.  A shaft, by the way, that is advertised to reduce the spin rate of the ball by 20%.  Felt good.  Didn't destroy the challenge of my game.  Didn't destroy the strategic intent of the hole in question.

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]

I've done higher mathematics.  It makes me skeptical of anecdotal information about 7/8" off centre hits on persimmon heads.

It's not anecdotal, it's the result of testing by the USGA.
You're just in denial regarding the revelation[/color]

[Glenn Spencer]

"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 ?"

So now that this game is so easy I guess you're what a plus three or four handicap?

No the game is not easier. I can play some golf, but there are many on this site that are a lot better than me, Patrick Mucci among them, although I would like a crack at him sometimes.   Here is what I have noticed. The GAME has not become easier, it has changed quite a bit though. 6-6-6 may or may not have ever been true, but now it is 0-2-16 as far as pins go. The guys who set up tournaments or courses for everyday use have no qualms about sticking pins in very tough positions because they know that the technology makes it that much more playable than it used to be. The rough is up for the same reason, the tees are always all the way back for the most part and the greens are much faster. Nobody says anything, because they are shooting similar scores. This was always available in the 80's and 90's, but not used all that much because it was known that it would be too tough for most. Now, that is not an issue. I like a challenge and for a long time, I didn't mind because I thought it played into my hands, being for my level, a decent ball-striker. Upon reflection I realized that the tougher pins and conditions don't help a ball-stiker as much as I thought, what it does is place an inordinant amount of importance on the short game and putting. These parts of the game used to equalize things and now they are HUGE advantages. It used to be a huge advantage to be able to hit you 3,4 and 5 irons on a green and 2-putt, now that is lessened because those clubs are hardly ever hit. I have seen the kids at the range these days and they hit drivers, wedges and then head to the short game area. Why would they work on hitting 4-irons? Oh, I forgot about the second shot to the par 5's. The advantage of hitting the ball long is gone, everyone can do it, the ad of hitting straight is gone for the same reason. My scores are about the same, because I can't scramble anymore and it is harder to get into a grinding mode, for me at least. Short games are too emphasized and that is how the game has changed, not gotten easier.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Glenn Spencer,

I think your statement about rarely going OB these days is more telling.

I too have found that to be the case.

On a golf course that I've been playing for 50+ years I used to hit it OB far more often than I would have liked to on holes # 6, # 7 # 9 and # 18.

I haven't hit it OB yet this year (bad omen that I mention that), and, I can't think of one time that I did it last year.
Even if my memory is failing, the frequency of OB hits is down considerably, yet, I know that I'm not a better athlete.

It's the club and the ball and not the golfer.
The ball goes straighter and farther because of hi-tech, not enhanced athletic ability.

As to hole locations, our club is putting them in spots they've never been in before.  High risk locations.  I love it, although many complain about the difficulty of all 18 holes being very challenging.  The pins at Plainfield on tuesday were all world, as if the final round of the U.S. Open was held earlier that day.

So, you're right, clubs are responding by heightening the challenge.

And, I'll add one more thing for Bryan's benefit.

When I was 25, virtually NOONE age 65 outdrove me.
Today, 40 years later, I"m hitting the ball beyond the distances I hit it when I was 25, and straighter.

If I had Jack Nicklaus's short game, I'd be a serious threat.

Likewise, so far this year, I've noticed that the rough is UP, and not just at my course, but at Ridgewood, Mt Ridge and Plainfield as well.

[Glenn Spencer]

Patrick,

Do you think the ball-stikers are better off today or in 1995? The only reason that could be is the location of the high-risk pins, but the short game is so much harder to be good at, that it far outweighs the ability to hit a 4-iron pin high in 1995. I will go one furhter with OB, I don't chip out nearly as much either. I like the tougher pins, I just know that it is hurting the game that once served me pretty well and now seems antiquated. I hear that Nicklaus would have never finished second with your short game. The age thing that you mention is also true. When younger I would pray to draw an older gentleman, now I want to draw a younger guy because everyone can hit it and the older guys have a more complete short game and better mind than most of the kids sans the REAL guns.

[Bryan Izatt]

Glenn Spencer,

I think your statement about rarely going OB these days is more telling.

I too have found that to be the case.

On a golf course that I've been playing for 50+ years I used to hit it OB far more often than I would have liked to on holes # 6, # 7 # 9 and # 18.

I haven't hit it OB yet this year (bad omen that I mention that), and, I can't think of one time that I did it last year.
Even if my memory is failing, the frequency of OB hits is down considerably, yet, I know that I'm not a better athlete.

Maybe not a better athlete, but maybe, with age, wiser at course management

Regrettably I still lose a few to OB.  Hard to compare to 40 years ago, since I play a different course now.  Now, the OB's are left on doglegs I foolishly sometimes try to cut.  My miss is a hook (where do you get those clubs and balls that fly straight unless you make an exagerated effort?).    I used to fade the ball when I was younger and the OB's on that course were left.  It took 40 years to learn, but I now draw the ball more than fade it.

It's the club and the ball and not the golfer.
The ball goes straighter and farther because of hi-tech, not enhanced athletic ability.

As to hole locations, our club is putting them in spots they've never been in before.  High risk locations.  I love it, although many complain about the difficulty of all 18 holes being very challenging.  The pins at Plainfield on tuesday were all world, as if the final round of the U.S. Open was held earlier that day.

So, you're right, clubs are responding by heightening the challenge.

And, I'll add one more thing for Bryan's benefit.

When I was 25, virtually NOONE age 65 outdrove me.
Today, 40 years later, I"m hitting the ball beyond the distances I hit it when I was 25, and straighter.

[colr=red]What the corollary?  Do you hit it further than anyone who's 25 today?

Me too, 40 years later.  Definitely the equipment and balls to thank.  You don't need to keep making that point to me.  The debate is whether it's a problem, to whom, and is the fix worse than the problem for the vast majority of us.[/color]  

If I had Jack Nicklaus's short game, I'd be a serious threat.

You're too modest; even with your short game you're probably a serious threat to Nicklaus today. He was widely quoted this week that he has no game any more (and seemingly at your age) - although he shot a 68 at Dundarave in PEI yesterday in a match with Watson.

Likewise, so far this year, I've noticed that the rough is UP, and not just at my course, but at Ridgewood, Mt Ridge and Plainfield as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I've always managed my game fairly well, so, I'd say it's got more to do with execution.

It seems that my shot pattern is more compressed with my driver and 3-wood, today, versus 20-30-40-50 years ago.

Glenn,

I think a few things have happened.

I believe that tucked pins were easier to approach as you could aim the ball at the conservative target and try to work it safely toward the pin.  If you failed to work it, you just had a longer putt.

However, pin seeking has become more prevalent because toda's wedges allow you to be bolder.  A missed approach doesn't present the quandry the golfer faced pre Lob and Gap wedges.  And, the ball goes straighter, hence degrees of variance from the target are diminished.

And, you're now approaching, from the same distance, with a more lofted club.   In many cases, you're approaching from a shorter distance with and even more lofted club.
That's a big advantage.

Trying to hit a 2-iron into a green is more difficult than hitting a 4-iron into the same green, and certainly more difficult than hitting a 6-iron into the same green.

Having the ability to hit the ball left to right and right to left, without exaggerated efforts rewarded skill.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()