Narrowed dispersal patterns and architecture

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd,

I've used Ping Eye 2's for about two plus decades.
I used to use MacGregor and Toney Penna blades.
Every time I hit a mis-hit that goes on the green, I kiss the clubface and thank Karsten Solheim because I know that that ball would have been in trouble with my old clubs.

And, I'm driving the ball straighter than I ever have with my Taylor Driver, those mis-hits don't seem to slice or hook OB anymore, and, I haven't gotten more athletic in the last 40 years.

The evidence is undeniable

Ball go farther
Ball go straighter.

Pat

Is is possible that your confidence is up with the new driver?

And have you seen what Tiger and the young guns can do when it comes to hitting it sideways with these things?

For your test group of one, I concede, I'm happy for you.

I'm going back to a 360cc Titleist to see if I prefer it, I think I do, this new TM 425 is fine, but not noticeably better, and I can use whatever headcover I like with the older club...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd,

One of the reasons that today's Pros can be erratic is that the new equipment has allowed them to swing so much harder/faster.

Using an old 43 inch H&B Citation, shallow faced driver with a D-3 or heavier swing weight, you didn't dare swing hard.
And, adding shaft length only allowed big, strong guys to swing hard/fast if consequence was not a consideration.
Evan, "Big Cat" Williams was probably one of the first.
But, his driver was a D-6 or heavier.
I played with him and watched scratch handicap golfers try to swing his driver effectively.  They couldn't.
And, it was sometimes difficult for Evan to break 80 because swinging that hard, with that equipment, often found locations unknown to most golfers.

The strength to weight ratio's are better in today's club heads.
The shafts are better and longer.
The club heads are huge.
This allows the golfer to develop a huge arc by disconnecting his right elbow from his body and swinging as hard as he can, secure in the knowledge that his tennis head sized golf club will contact the ball, almost anywhere on the clubface, and send the ball flying ungodly distances while keeping it reasonably on line.

Perhaps some or many don't want to accept the impact equipment has had on the game and architecture.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd,

One of the reasons that today's Pros can be erratic is that the new equipment has allowed them to swing so much harder/faster.

Using an old 43 inch H&B Citation, shallow faced driver with a D-3 or heavier swing weight, you didn't dare swing hard.
And, adding shaft length only allowed big, strong guys to swing hard/fast if consequence was not a consideration.
Evan, "Big Cat" Williams was probably one of the first.
But, his driver was a D-6 or heavier.
I played with him and watched scratch handicap golfers try to swing his driver effectively.  They couldn't.
And, it was sometimes difficult for Evan to break 80 because swinging that hard, with that equipment, often found locations unknown to most golfers.

The strength to weight ratio's are better in today's club heads.
The shafts are better and longer.
The club heads are huge.
This allows the golfer to develop a huge arc by disconnecting his right elbow from his body and swinging as hard as he can, secure in the knowledge that his tennis head sized golf club will contact the ball, almost anywhere on the clubface, and send the ball flying ungodly distances while keeping it reasonably on line.

Perhaps some or many don't want to accept the impact equipment has had on the game and architecture.

Pat

One of the reasons that today's Pros can be erratic is that the new equipment has allowed them to swing so much harder/faster.

Agreed. That is absolutely the key.

The reasonably on line bit is the only area I question.

An amusing aside after yours - In Melbourne I was lucky enough to play several of the classic courses with Mike Clayton, which was great fun and very illuminating. MC has one of G Ogilvy's custom Cobra drivers and he was hitting it very nicely, very straight. I suggested to him that the shaft (80 gram X400) was probably not ideal for his modest swing speed (the only thing modest in his game which was an exibition of control) and maybe he'd gain a few yards if he got one fitted. He said - maybe so but he just liked the feel as it was. After he'd thrashed me again I had a swing with it, expecting results similar to folk with Big Cat's club. Lo and behold I hit a perfect shot (for me) pretty much in line with my best ones with my TM firm shaft... Go figure.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

I still can't believe that you want to change golf course architecture to combat your percieved "increased accuracy of moderm clubs". Has the course record at your various club fallen so far that this extreme measure is necessary?

I'll grant you that modern drivers have more MOI, COR, and length than persimmon drivers of old. However, long accurate driving is the means to an end; no one scores better just because they drive the ball longer and straighter. They still have to hit the ball close to the hole and I dont see many people using driver to do that.

You claim that your Ping Eye 2's  put you on the green where your bad shots with blade irons wouldn't; frankly I'm sceptical. First of how do you know that you missed the sweet spot? Unless you're hitting from the rough and there is a grass stain on the face, what proof do you have? My experience is that in hitting cavity backed irons, there is little feedback that you have missed the sweet spot, so how do you know that you did miss it and still made the green?

I can't see changing green size and orientation to combat a threat that can't be quantified. Granted elite players are driving it obscene distances and hitting nothing less than 7 iron into even 500 yard par 5's; but do you really want to change the course architecture to stop this small class of golfer?

The real question is: do we need to change the architecture of the golf course because guys like you are tearing it up all too frequently?

[Ken Moum]

I do not believe all the claims made by the manufacturers, if they were true, that extra 15 yards with every new model would have strong amateurs hitting it 450 by now
Hence my quote
I do not believe that all modern clubs help all players
I don't believe the 460 drivers are straighter
Irons with great big heads help no one,

<snip>

I do not believe acuracy is improved with modern irons otherwise ALL professionals, whose jobs depend upon it would use them. Many don't.

I'm with you, Lloyd.

I play alternately with modern and old equipment, and the difference in results isn't that great. Perimeter weighting does seem to help the low handicappers who aren't as good as the pros, but who still have swings that produce a correct path and face angle most of the time.

Their mishits are the ones you and Pat mentioned here, slightly on the toe, but still on the green. That is simply not the common error among us crummy ball strikers.

I am much more likely to have the face angle way off, in which case I would rather that my ball travel well short of it's full distance. At least a short duck hook might stay on the golf course.

And I have yet to see a perimeter weighted club that can help a shank, a chunk or a cold top.

IIRC, ASGCA said in one of it's technology statements that architects have been forced to dramatically widen playing corridors as a result of new technology, that doesn't sound like narrower dispersal patterns.

What I see is average players hitting it ever farther off line with their longer, lighter, bigger drivers--combined with longer balls.

Ken

[Chris_Clouser]

Lloyd and Ken,

I tend to agree with you.  I'm not so sure that the clubs of today hit the ball farther than those of yesteryear.  My driver today goes about 250 off the tee, the same yardage my old persimmon driver would go.  I'm hitting my 6-iron roughly the same distance today with the cavity back as when I played blades.  So distance isn't an issue with me and I only see this as something that affects only the pros and is used to stuff marketing brochures.

Occasionally, I will hit a shot that I feel like comes off of the toe of an iron and it seems to not go as far offline as I would anticipate.  So I can see some of Pat's thinking, but the ball just goes less offline.  For balls I hit solidly, there is really no difference.  

The biggest difference I see today is the ability to shape shots.  I at one time was able to fade or draw my tee shot whenever I wanted with the persimmon driver.  Today, the fade is still possible, but I have a hard time hitting a draw on demand.  This could be a combination of the clubs and balls though.  

Also, club technology has given us something that I really think has helped all players that have it, the hybrid club.  But that might be another thread.

[Ken Moum]

Also, club technology has given us something that I really think has helped all players that have it, the hybrid club.  But that might be another thread.

What goes around comes around.

I have two different wooden-headed utility clubs with hickory shafts that could be called either hybrids or lofted fairway woods.

One is a bulldog style with a shortish, stiff shaft and ~25* of loft, whiile the other is a cleek with 23* or 24* loft and a head that's almost identical in shape to a modern hybrid.

I also have a steel-shafted Beckley-Ralston Walloper with a solid aluminum head and about 5-iron loft from the 1940s or 50s.

And, do these first two look like hybrids?



Then, of course, there are the Mills utility clubs shown on the right here....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I still can't believe that you want to change golf course architecture to combat your percieved "increased accuracy of moderm clubs".

I don't[/color]

Has the course record at your various club fallen so far that this extreme measure is necessary?

This has nothing to do with existing golf courses.

It's about the design of future golf courses.[/color]

I'll grant you that modern drivers have more MOI, COR, and length than persimmon drivers of old. However, long accurate driving is the means to an end;

no one scores better just because they drive the ball longer and straighter.

That's an absurd statement.

Everyone scores better when they drive the ball longer and straighter.[/color]

They still have to hit the ball close to the hole and I dont see many people using driver to do that.

That gets easier to do as you get closer to the hole.
If you don't think so, you hit balls from 150 yards and I'll hit from them from 100 yards and let's wager on who in a position to score better.[/color]

You claim that your Ping Eye 2's  put you on the green where your bad shots with blade irons wouldn't; frankly I'm sceptical.

First of how do you know that you missed the sweet spot?


You must be kidding.
The hitter always knows.[/color]

Unless you're hitting from the rough and there is a grass stain on the face, what proof do you have?

You must be kidding ........ again.
I know when I've hit it outside the sweet spot, whether it's on the toe, heel, high or low.[/color]

My experience is that in hitting cavity backed irons, there is little feedback that you have missed the sweet spot, so how do you know that you did miss it and still made the green ?

What's your handicap, how long have you been playing golf and for how long have you been playing cavity backed irons ?[/color]

I can't see changing green size and orientation to combat a threat that can't be quantified. Granted elite players are driving it obscene distances and hitting nothing less than 7 iron into even 500 yard par 5's; but do you really want to change the course architecture to stop this small class of golfer ?

It's not a small class.
Almost EVERY golf course has been lengthened in the last 20 years in an attempt to offset this problem.  But, that's just at the tee end.

Other features have to be employed at the mid and end section of the holes.[/color]

The real question is: do we need to change the architecture of the golf course because guys like you are tearing it up all too frequently?

Perhaps you haven't had the opportunity to watch younger kids play golf.   From age 15 to age 25 the results are eye opening.   I believe that the NCAA tourament produced average drives that were longer than those on the PGA Tour.
That should tell you something about the wave of the future.[/color]

Lloyd,

It's easy to hit any lightweight club with a huge head.

It's not easy hitting an extra long steel shafted persimmon driver with a D-6/D-8 swing weight.

Evan (Big Cat) Williams was about 6'5", with a muscular basketball player's physique.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd and Ken,

I tend to agree with you.  
[size=4x]
I'm not so sure that the clubs of today hit the ball farther than those of yesteryear.  [/size]

You must be kidding.
Are you also a member of the flat earth society ?[/color]

My driver today goes about 250 off the tee, the same yardage my old persimmon driver would go.  

Then, you need a new driver.
And, why did you spend all that money and switch if you didn't get improved results ?[/color]

I'm hitting my 6-iron roughly the same distance today with the cavity back as when I played blades.  

Then, why did you spend the money on clubs that didn't improve your performance ?  That sounds pretty foolish to me.
Didn't you test them out before you bought them ?[/color]

So distance isn't an issue with me and I only see this as something that affects only the pros and is used to stuff marketing brochures.

Those marketing brochures must have been very effective.
You spent all that money on drivers and irons that, according to you, didn't improve your performance.  I don't know anyone that buys new clubs that don't improve their performance.[/color]

Occasionally, I will hit a shot that I feel like comes off of the toe of an iron and it seems to not go as far offline as I would anticipate.  So I can see some of Pat's thinking, but the ball just goes less offline.  For balls I hit solidly, there is really no difference.  

Let's just take simple physics.

With a lighter head and shaft a club can be swung faster.
With a longer shaft added, additional speed can be generated,
Yet, you would have us believe that the ball doesn't go farther, despite greatly increased clubhead speed.

Tell me again, why did you buy that new driver and irons ?
And, why do you still have them and play with them ?[/color]

The biggest difference I see today is the ability to shape shots.  I at one time was able to fade or draw my tee shot whenever I wanted with the persimmon driver.  Today, the fade is still possible, but I have a hard time hitting a draw on demand.  This could be a combination of the clubs and balls though.

Thanks.

That means that the ball is going straighter.
You have to use an exagerated swing to produce the same results you obtained routinely with your persimmon.

You've made my point.[/color]  

Also, club technology has given us something that I really think has helped all players that have it, the hybrid club.  But that might be another thread.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat, you said:

"Everyone scores better when they drive the ball longer and straighter."

The truth is, everyone has the potential to score better; there is no guarantee.

I still can't believe your claims of the value of cavity backed irons. Let me get this sraight, you miss the sweet spot, by enough of a margin to feel it and your ball still goes on the green? So are you trying to tell me that you never come up short due to a mishit?

When you switched to the Pings, did your GIR really improve? I'm willing to bet that you stuck the ball better due to the confidence factor gained from having a new set of irons, which eventually tailed off. In fact, I'de go even further to wager that we could equipe you with some Hogan blades and you would play just a well, if not better.

I play Mizunos and appreciate the feedback from an off center hit. It's been 10 years since I had my Tommy Armour 845's in the bag and don't miss them for a minute. In fact the Mizunos are precisely why my handicap got from 10 to 6.

If cavity backs are so good why does Tiger play blades?

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd,

It's easy to hit any lightweight club with a huge head.

Pat

Using your test group of one logic I can honestly reply -

No it is not

I have tried and too light a shaft and too big a head feels like flying a kite. I have trouble with it.

Ogilvy's driver was swing weight D6 minimum, BTW, mine is D4 and his felt sunstantially heavier, but still very nice as the overall weight was still substantially lighter than the old clubs you refer to.

We're agreed on some basic priciples and we disagree on the acuracy angle. If this was a jury, it's not guilty because you have not persuaded this juror. You think you're right. I think you're only half right.
Also, I know lots of folk who have bought clubs that have been bad for their game. I'm sure you do too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd,

You're correct about peope buying clubs that had no impact or a negative impact on their game.

But, they didn't continue to play with them.

In the last few years I've tried other sets of irons, but, they didn't produce enhanced performance, hence, they're no longer in my possession.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you said:

"Everyone scores better when they drive the ball longer and straighter."

The truth is, everyone has the potential to score better; there is no guarantee.

I still can't believe your claims of the value of cavity backed irons. Let me get this sraight, you miss the sweet spot, by enough of a margin to feel it and your ball still goes on the green?

I can't begin to tell you how many heelers and thinners I've hit that find the green, the number is substantial.  Even toe shots make it.[/color]

So are you trying to tell me that you never come up short due to a mishit ?

How do you draw that conclusion ?[/color]

When you switched to the Pings, did your GIR really improve ?


Yes, especially out of the rough.[/color]

I'm willing to bet that you stuck the ball better due to the confidence factor gained from having a new set of irons, which eventually tailed off.

No, it was just the opposite.
I bought the Pings because I observed several superior amateur players playing them, several were Walker Cuppers.
I bought them as an investment in R&D.

As to confidence, they were so ugly looking I had a hard time getting used to them, even though many good golfers had acquired a Ping 1-iron previously, acquiring an entire set was a leap of faith and a defensive move at the same time.
If they, with their ugly appearance, were good enough for some of the best amateurs in the country, they were good enough for me.[/color]

In fact, I'de go even further to wager that we could equipe you with some Hogan blades and you would play just a well, if not better.

If that was the case, I'd jump on the offer.
In the last year and a half I've tried just about every set made, but, keep returning to my Pings.  I recently purchased a set of unused Ping Eye 2's from Japan.[/color]

I play Mizunos and appreciate the feedback from an off center hit.

I did like the T-zoids, but, they're not pure blades.[/color]

It's been 10 years since I had my Tommy Armour 845's in the bag and don't miss them for a minute. In fact the Mizunos are precisely why my handicap got from 10 to 6.

If cavity backs are so good why does Tiger play blades?

That's easy to answer.
Because he rarely misses the sweet spot.
Even when he swings too hard.

Years ago I knew a local pro whose clubs had a circle in the dead center because he pured just about every shot.  But, he and Tiger don't represent the average golfer.[/color]

[Bryan Izatt]

I'd agree that you know when you've mis-hit a shot even with cavity back irons (or even 460cc drivers).  I'd agree that mis-hits, to a degree, don't lose as much distance as they used to with persimmon or blades.  I'd debate though that cavity back irons or large headed drivers significantly reduce side-to-side dispersion.

Pat, you've done it again.  You've referred to unamed studies,

The studies on mis-hit shots, from drivers to irons has proven that.

And then you never cite the study in response to direct questions.  You refer to them to support your points, then you should cite them.  This time you evade by referring to Rugge's "comments"

Jeff Brauer answered your question when he referenced comments by Dick Rugge.

Are Rugge's comments based on the studies you refer to?  Have you seen the studies?  Can you bring them forward for our education, or will you continue to avoid and tell us to find them ourselves?

Interestingly Jeff's description of Rugge's comments:

At our ASGCA meeting last week, Dick Rugge discussed a lot of that.  It seems that with new drivers, fw can now be 25 yards wide, and at the Open, players hit it with the same frequency as ten years ago at 30 yards. He attributes that to the big face.

He thought the grooves on the irons helped accuracy - 50% of shots from rough hit the green on the pro tour.  There are limited studies on club play, but one suggests that greens are only hit 13% of the time from the rough.

talk about grooves (not perimeter weighting) help accuracy from the rough for tour pros.  Do you suppose that means distance control accuracy or spin to stop the ball on the green if they get the right distance?  Which raises the question, when you talk about dispersion are you talking about side-to-side dispersion or length dispersion?

If side-to-side dispersion, I think that face angle at impact determines the dispersion pattern in irons.  Also true with large headed drivers with the exception that the gear effect induced by the face bulge tends to return balls hit off centre on the face to the intended line of flight. What features in new large headed driver do you suppose actually help reduce side-to-side dispersion?  How do they help improve the face angle at impact.  One of the common complaints with large drivers is the difficulty of returning the clubface to square at impact.

And, back to the architectural side of the question, I'm not sure for which kind of player you're asking whether "precise distance" should be a focal point of design?  For the pros, and maybe excellent amateurs such as yourself, it should be.  But, the vast majority of golfers rarely hit greens in regulation as it is.  Give them tougher targets and it only gets worse.  Should there be tournament courses that are geared for high level competitions, where the average player just has to live with the carnage the tougher target greens would wreak?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Shivas,
This stat suggests that a Tour Pro can get in on the green 5 out of 10 times from the rough and a club player gets it out and on about 1 in 10. That's not an unbelieveable ratio,
especially when taking into consideration the more severe set-ups on Tour.

Whether or not it bolsters an argument is another question.

   

[Chris_Clouser]

Pat,

I would think you of all people could at least carry on a civil discourse without resorting to cheap second-grade ridicule.  But I guess that isn't possible if someone has a different opinion, and I stress opinion, than you.  

If you must know I had to get a new set of clubs because the persimmon woods I had were falling apart, they had been used so much.  Also the heads from the irons had begun to noticeably wear and some of them had even broken off at the hosel.  I had the same set for over twenty years.  I thought it might be time to get a new set of clubs.  That's it.  As if it makes a difference, the set I bought was the cheapest in the store that I felt comfortable with.  It had nothing to do with marketing.  Simple economics.  Sounds to me like you might be the one falling for the large marketing ploys of the manufacturers if you really believe the claims they make.

You don't get it do you.  For the pros, things are entirely different.  For the average guy, regardless if the courses get longer or not, they are playing the same tees they have played the last twenty years at their local course and playing with the same guys and probably drinking the same drinks they will always drink.  They hit the ball the same distance and direction with their new clubs as they did with their old.  They might shave a stroke or two off their game over time, but only if they play more than once a month with the guys.  Why do you think the average score of the average golfer has stayed the same for the last umpteen years?  Not because of technology improvements.  Not because of the instruction tips in the magazines.  It is because perhaps the guys in the carts that don't replace their divots might, and I repeat might, be driving the ball five yards further into the rough and still having to hit running hooks around a group of trees just to be able to pitch onto the green and then hopefully two putt for bogey.  It's not about the distance you hit it or the dispersion pattern.  It's about playing a wonderful competitive game with your friends and enjoying both at the same time while also hopefully getting some exercise and thinking that one day you will play the round of your life so you can gloat about it each time that you go back out with your friends and shoot your 96 or whatever.  And if you play it on a nice course, great!!!  That's all it's ever been about and all it should ever be about.  The minute it isn't, is the minute I quit the game.  

Between the thoughts on equipment and the discussing courses if one hasn't had the opportunity to play them threads that I have seen over the years, I am beginning to see why Matt Cohn doesn't respond to your threads.

[Pete Lavallee]

Shivas,

My point with the difference between blades and CB irons was not feeling the gross mishit, but rather the one that's just a 1/2 to 1/4 inch off. The shot seems OK but never quite gets there. Obviously anyone with a modicum of skill can tell when they've toed one.

Pat,

I'm glad your Pings work well for you; I have noticed that most Ping players are extremely loyal, so there must be some advantage to those butt ugly clubs. Your point that they help get the ball out of the rough is well taken. Most experts agree that the primary benefit of CB irons is they help get the ball in the air. Players with moderate to high clubhead speed can easily get the ball in the air by virtue of swing speed and the spin it produces.

Very few of the courses we play here in SD have any rough to speak of, so I can get away with playing my MP-33's.

As far as answering your original question, I don't think iron shot dispersion has changed; 70% is still the benchmark on Tour. I agree with the other poster that the greater distance of tee shots these days  actually increases dispersion. Many architects have mentioned on the board how they have to build greater buffer areas for safety than they did in the past. I would love to see a rolled back ball with a mandated minmum spin level.

[Kalen Braley]

As a 14 handicapper, its always easy to tell when you pure an iron because it'll usually result in flying the green after going 15 yards further than you intended.

As for shots out of thick rough, I just assume its a difficult shot because I rarely execute it as planned, don't normally correlate that to a mishit iron shot unless it only goes 5 feet.  As for more normal muni rough, its not tough to tell when you hit it crisp or not.  Crisp hit on green, anything else not on green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd agree that you know when you've mis-hit a shot even with cavity back irons (or even 460cc drivers).  I'd agree that mis-hits, to a degree, don't lose as much distance as they used to with persimmon or blades.  I'd debate though that cavity back irons or large headed drivers significantly reduce side-to-side dispersion.

Then you'd be at odds with the golfing universe.[/color]

Pat, you've done it again.  You've referred to unamed studies,

The studies on mis-hit shots, from drivers to irons has proven that.

And then you never cite the study in response to direct questions.  You refer to them to support your points, then you should cite them.  This time you evade by referring to Rugge's "comments"

First, I don't recall the specific names of the tests/studies, but, they were widely pubicized.
Second, it's not my responsibility to spoon feed you everything I've observed or read.  Do your own research.[/color]

Jeff Brauer answered your question when he referenced comments by Dick Rugge.

Are Rugge's comments based on the studies you refer to?  Have you seen the studies?  

YES, I've seen some of the studies.[/color]

Can you bring them forward for our education, or will you continue to avoid and tell us to find them ourselves?

They're there for the finding.
I'm sure, with a little effort, that you can find them.

To claim that off center hits on today's drivers don't enjoy the benefit of enhanced performace over the old persimmon drivers is to:
A. Have your head in the sand.
B. Be in denial
C. Not have keen or even basic powers of observation.
D. Want to disagree in the hope of winning the argument
E. All of the above.[/color]

Interestingly Jeff's description of Rugge's comments:

At our ASGCA meeting last week, Dick Rugge discussed a lot of that.  It seems that with new drivers, fw can now be 25 yards wide, and at the Open, players hit it with the same frequency as ten years ago at 30 yards. He attributes that to the big face.

He thought the grooves on the irons helped accuracy - 50% of shots from rough hit the green on the pro tour.  There are limited studies on club play, but one suggests that greens are only hit 13% of the time from the rough.

talk about grooves (not perimeter weighting) help accuracy from the rough for tour pros.  Do you suppose that means distance control accuracy or spin to stop the ball on the green if they get the right distance?  

Both[/color]

Which raises the question, when you talk about dispersion are you talking about side-to-side dispersion or length dispersion ?

Horizontal[/color]

If side-to-side dispersion, I think that face angle at impact determines the dispersion pattern in irons.

It's A factor, not the sole factor.[/color]  

Also true with large headed drivers with the exception that the gear effect induced by the face bulge tends to return balls hit off centre on the face to the intended line of flight.


Persimmon driver heads had more than ample bulge and roll to compensate for mishits, but, the studies/tests are clear.

Off center hits on today's drivers go farther and straighter than off center hits on the old Persimmons.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think you can't find a Persimmon driver in ANYONE's golf bag today ?

Why are golfers spending $ 400 and $ 500 for today's drivers ?

Do you think it's a marketing ploy without any substance ?

Why is everyone on the PGA Tour using today's metal drivers ?
[/color]

What features in new large headed driver do you suppose actually help reduce side-to-side dispersion?  

For starters:
The strength to weight ratio of titanium to persimmon
The repositioning of the center of gravity.
Perimeter weighting.
The light weight of the driver head.
The ability of produce a larger head.
A larger sweet spot,
The results of mis-hit shots.

The last member of the flat earth society finally conceded that the world was round when a high altitude rocket took pictures of earth, circa 1947-1949.

When do you think you'll come to grips with the benefit of today's drivers and irons ? [/color]

How do they help improve the face angle at impact.  

Their lighter weight helps in that area.
It's easier to return a light clubhead to the proper line than it is a heavier clubhead.

Not everyone is "Big Cat" Williams.[/color]


One of the common complaints with large drivers is the difficulty of returning the clubface to square at impact.

Common complaints from whom ?

I've NEVER heard that complaint, so, it can't be that common.

It's easier to get a light weight clubhead square to impact than it is to get a heavier clubhead square to impact..[/color]

And, back to the architectural side of the question, I'm not sure for which kind of player you're asking whether "precise distance" should be a focal point of design?  

For the pros, and maybe excellent amateurs such as yourself, it should be.  But, the vast majority of golfers rarely hit greens in regulation as it is.  

This is where the flaw in your position occurs.

10, 15 and 20 handicaps aren't supposed to hit greens in regulation, that's part of what makes them 10, 15 and 20 handicaps.

Most of those golfers are attempting to hit those greens in a shot or more above regulation, so you can't context your position as if they're meant to hit greens in regulation.

Pros and low handicap amateurs are expected to hit greens in regulation, hence, by making that task more difficult, you're only marginally affecting the 10, 15 and 20 handicap player.

With the advent of today's sand, gap and lob wedges, the recovery task has been made easier for everyone, so why not restore the challenge to offset the technological advances ?

Do you think the architects that designed golf courses in 1918-1928-1938-1948 designed those courses understanding the distances today's golfers hit the ball, or the advent of the Lob wedge ?

Gene Sarazen invented the sand wedge and I would imagine Karsten Solheim or one of his peers invented the Lob wedge.

Shouldn't architects create challenges for those advanced technologies ?  Or, should they let technology conquer the archtiecture ?[/color]

Give them tougher targets and it only gets worse.  Should there be tournament courses that are geared for high level competitions, where the average player just has to live with the carnage the tougher target greens would wreak?

You're making the same mistake again, equating the play of high handicaps and how they traverse a golf course with pros and low handicap amateurs.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I would think you of all people could at least carry on a civil discourse without resorting to cheap second-grade ridicule.  But I guess that isn't possible if someone has a different opinion, and I stress opinion, than you.  


You made a moronic statement:[/color]

"Lloyd and Ken,

I tend to agree with you. [size=4x]

I'm not so sure that the clubs of today hit the ball farther than those of yesteryear." [/size]

I merely pointed it out.

You should think before you type.

Today, I introduced Mike Sweeney to the fellow I referenced earlier.

He's 78 years old.
He repeated for Mike, that which he said to me the other day.
Namely, that he's hitting the ball farther today then he did 30 years ago..

Now, this is a fellow who played in 4 or 5 USGA Senior OPENS, starting when he turned 50.  30 years ago he was 48.

During our round today, I hit some tee shots that were a good 20 to 30 yards farther than I ever hit them 30-40 years ago, when I was in great shape and playing hockey, full court basketball and football.  

For you to say that today's clubs don't hit the ball farther than yesteryear's is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard.

Why aren't the PGA Tour pros, low and high handicap golfers playing yesteryear's equipment ?[/color]
 
If you must know I had to get a new set of clubs because the persimmon woods I had were falling apart, they had been used so much.  

You could have replaced them at almost NO cost at all.
There's a huge inventory of old persimmons, NOONE uses them.[/color]

Also the heads from the irons had begun to noticeably wear and some of them had even broken off at the hosel.  I had the same set for over twenty years.  I thought it might be time to get a new set of clubs.  That's it.  

You could have bought another set of those clubs at practically no cost at all.  There's virtually no market for old blades other than collectors.[/color]

As if it makes a difference, the set I bought was the cheapest in the store that I felt comfortable with.  It had nothing to do with marketing.  Simple economics.  

Simple economics ?

People are giving these clubs away.
They'd pay you to take them off their hands.
You could have replaced your old woods for a song.[/color]

Sounds to me like you might be the one falling for the large marketing ploys of the manufacturers if you really believe the claims they make.

I guess that's why I'm playing Pings I got in 1985, a putter I acquired in the 1960's, a Taylor driver I got about 5 years ago and a Titleist 3-wood I bought at about the same time.

Sounds to me as if you don't know what you're talking about.[/color]

You don't get it do you.  

I DO.
You're the one who's in a fog, a state of denial.
Should I quote you again ?[/color]

Lloyd and Ken,

I tend to agree with you.  [size=4x]

I'm not so sure that the clubs of today hit the ball farther than those of yesteryear. [/size]
 
For the pros, things are entirely different.

How about for the low handicap amateur ?

How about for the Mid handicap amateur ?[/color]

For the average guy, regardless if the courses get longer or not, they are playing the same tees they have played the last twenty years at their local course and playing with the same guys and probably drinking the same drinks they will always drink.  They hit the ball the same distance and direction with their new clubs as they did with their old.

Did it ever occur to you that the guy you mention above has aged 20 years, he was 45 and is now 65, yet, according to you, he's hitting the ball the same, as if he's been immune from the aging process.

You don't get it.

Hi-tech has kept Father Time at bay.
The decrease in accuracy and distance, brought about by the aging process, diminished hand-eye co-ordination and loss of strength, has been offset by advances in the I&B.[/color]  

They might shave a stroke or two off their game over time, but only if they play more than once a month with the guys.  

Why do you think the average score of the average golfer has stayed the same for the last umpteen years?  

Because modern equipment has offset the aging process over the last umpteen years.

Almost every course I know of has been lengthened over the last umpteen years, yet, you state handicaps have remained the same.

How can that be ?  How can the same golfers, who are getting older, and playing longer golf courses, retain the same handicap ?    HINT / CLUE  It's the equipment !
Now do you get it ?[/color]

Not because of technology improvements.  

Of course not.  Maybe it's their diet, or specialty sports drinks, or maybe Viagra.. but, NO, it couldn't be technological improvements.

And you think that I don't get it.   That's really funny.[/color]

Not because of the instruction tips in the magazines.  

Definitely not that.

But, maybe launch monitors, longer lighter graphite shafts, bigger lighter clubheads and the like.   Oh, I forgot, that's technology.  And, you did say it can't be technological improvements.  So, we've go to look for something else..

How about ...... magic ?[/color]

It is because perhaps the guys in the carts that don't replace their divots might, and I repeat [size=4x]might[/size], be driving the ball five yards further into the rough and still having to hit running hooks around a group of trees just to be able to pitch onto the green and then hopefully two putt for bogey.  

It's not about the distance you hit it or the dispersion pattern.  

Just when I thought you couldn't make another bonehead statement, you come up with this gem.

Mike Sweeney, or was it TEPaul ?  Then again, it might have been Hamilton B Hearst, was telling me just the other day, how they like to hit these really short, off line shots.   How it makes the game so much more enjoyable.  How they finish a round hitting these shots over and over again and really, really enjoy playing the game.

You seem to forget, the game of GOLF is all about getting the ball from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible.[/color]

It's about playing a wonderful [size=4x]competitive game[/color][/size] with your friends and enjoying both at the same time while also hopefully getting some exercise and thinking that one day you will play the round of your life so you can gloat about it each time that you go back out with your friends and shoot your 96 or whatever.  

The moment you introduce the word competitive, it's about getting it into the hole in as few strokes as possible, and hitting it long and straight is directly related to that end.

If you want companionship, buy a dog or hang out at a local bar.[/color]

And if you play it on a nice course, great!!!  That's all it's ever been about and all it should ever be about.  The minute it isn't, is the minute I quit the game.

Don't you want to be COMPETITIVE with your friends ?

If so, hitting it long and straight will help you get more competitive, and you can't do that with the clubs from yesteryear.[/color]

Between the thoughts on equipment and the discussing courses if one hasn't had the opportunity to play them threads that I have seen over the years, I am beginning to see why Matt Cohn doesn't respond to your threads.

Do you really think I care if Matt responds or not ?
I don't, he's free to do as he pleases.

As to discussing a course you've never played, in what context would you judge a response or comment relative to that golf course ?

Well, I've got to go, I've got a big match with Mike Sweeney tomorrow and thanks to your enlightened statements I'm heading to the basement to break out my old MacGregor Woods and Irons, vintage 1960.  If I'm lucky, maybe I'll find a dozen Maxfli "Blue Max" balls, the kind that go out of round after one shot.  

Your assurance that I don't hit the ball any farther with today's equipment than with yesteryear's has inspired me to return to my old equipment as it allowed me to shape the ball a little better.

Watch out Mike, I might come within 50-75 yards of one of your drives.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

With the advent of today's sand, gap and lob wedges, the recovery task has been made easier for everyone, so why not restore the challenge to offset the technological advances ?

Seriously Patrick, why? You use the argument that all players are now carrying new oversized drivers to buttress your claim that they go further. I happen to agree with that, but couldn't that same argument then be used to say that no golfers would prefer the challenge of yesteryear?

[Jason Topp]

Rather than dink around with the validity of the assumption, I would be interested in people's thoughts about the topic of the thread.

I was surprised when I played the TPC Sawgrass at how narrow the fairways were.  A 25 yard wide fairway is really narrow.  Nonetheless, I thought Dye did a great job of altering very narrow fairways (such as 1, 2, 4 and 18) with very wide ones (11, 5, etc).

The result is a challenge that makes a player prove he can put it in the fairway when challenged, but also offers holes where multiple choices exist for playing the hole.  

I think this approach is very effective for signle digit handicaps and better.  Its not so great for most.

[Pete Lavallee]

Good point, Jason. When fairways are 25 yards wide or less, how can a even the best golfers on the planet even think about which side of the fairway to be on.

[Jason Topp]

Good point, Jason. When fairways are 25 yards wide or less, how can a even the best golfers on the planet even think about which side of the fairway to be on.

Agreed, but Pat Ruddy's comments earlier this year ring true to me as well.  If you make a fairway really wide, bad pliayers will miss it anyway (including me if I am off) and, unless it is designed to really force a choice, it is not very interesting for a good player.  I think it is important to reward driving accuracy.  The most fun way to do it I have seen are slingshot contours in fairways such as exist on 10 at Augusta National or on the par five (I think 16) at Sand Hills.  Another good way to do it is through a reward of a visible 2nd if one hits the right spot off the tee, with shots being blind if not accurate.  A third way is a flat target spot off the tee, with a bunch of sidehill lies if the spot is not hit.  I also, however, think courses should have one or two narrow holes that force the player to hit it straight, with significant penalties for straying.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With the advent of today's sand, gap and lob wedges, the recovery task has been made easier for everyone, so why not restore the challenge to offset the technological advances ?

Seriously Patrick, why? You use the argument that all players are now carrying new oversized drivers to buttress your claim that they go further.

I happen to agree with that, but couldn't that same argument then be used to say that no golfers would prefer the challenge of yesteryear?


AHughes,

I would offer NGLA, CPC, PV and other classic courses as Exhibit A, as to why golfers crave yesteryears challenge.

I think there are enduring architectural values which are timeless when contexted properly.

I think drives that carry 340, 300, 280 or 250 remove that context.

It's that context that I'm refering to in the original post.
[/color]