News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Chuck Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Very simple. All the 'significant gains' that technology (every bit of it) has produced have added roughly 40 yards to the drive in 38 years( or 1 yd per yr), and ProV type balls haven't given anyone extraordinary length, as shown by the pre 2000 and post 2000 yardages that two of these top ten players hit the ball.  
But you picked an aging, worn-out John Daly, and a one-legged, hobbled Tiger Woods.  (Okay, so that's an exageration.  But let's please not base any major statistical pronouncements on two players.)

You might have picked Bubba Watson, who has been averaging about 315 to 319 yards for about three years, and who in 2008, had an astonishing, unprecedented, 44.1 percent of his measured drives at 320 yards or longer.  Bubba, with a Pro V and a Ping driver, can hit BOMBS.  That he isn't showing increasing overall driving distance increases year after year is very likely due to course setups and competitive demands.  

You want to keep controlling driver distances by pinching fairways and growing hayfields of punitive rough?  Gag me.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2008, 06:49:34 PM by Chuck Brown »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bubba was a boy in 1997.

Tiger sure wasn't throttling it back in 05, and if Daly's been taking something off the ball, well, that's scary 'cause the old fart pummelled it in '08. JD has been steady for a good number of years and hardly past his prime.
Make what you will of the numbers, but the top 10 guys today only average 40 more yards than the top 10 in 1980, and as CB's link shows, it's only 30 yards in 38 years if you average all Tour players.



   

 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Chuck Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bubba was a boy in 1997.

Tiger sure wasn't throttling it back in 05, and if Daly's been taking something off the ball, well, that's scary 'cause the old fart pummelled it in '08. JD has been steady for a good number of years and hardly past his prime.
Make what you will of the numbers, but the top 10 guys today only average 40 more yards than the top 10 in 1980, and as CB's link shows, it's only 30 yards in 38 years if you average all Tour players.
Come on, Jim; I know that it's useless to try to use Bubba Watson to try to glean any 10-year stats.  He was too young then, as there are many familiar "too old" guys now to make any generalizations.  Let's just not use any two players to make any "full field" generalizations, okay?

I came back to you with the Bubba Watson numbers, because you said, "ProV type balls haven't given anyone extraordinary length..."  Wrong.  I think they have; they've given practically every tour player "increased" length, and they have given a few, like Bubba and JB Holmes "extraordinary" length.  Hence the Bubba numbers.

JohnV

2002 PGA Tour Driving Distance average was 279.8 yards.
2008 PGA Tour Driving Distance average was 287.3 yards.
> +7.5 yards
"... any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable..."!?!

Chuck, please consider that the USGA and R&A knew what balls were in the pipeline for 2003 at the time of that statement and used that knowledge in their decision.  The average was 286.6 in 2003.  It has only gone up by 0.7 yards since.

You might have picked Bubba Watson, who has been averaging about 315 to 319 yards for a three years, and who in 2008, had an astonishing, unprecedented, 44.1 percent of his measured drives at 320 yards or longer.  Bubba, with a Pro V and a Ping driver, can hit BOMBS.  That he isn't showing increasing overall driving distance increases year after year is very likely due to course setups and competitive demands.  

Compare apples to apples Chuck.  What was Bubba averaging 10 years ago and how much has he increased since then?  You can't determine how much the ball and club has increased distance just by throwing one player's current numbers into the mix.  We can go back 3 more years in Bubba's history by putting his Nationwide Tour numbers in.  He is getting shorter.  In 2003 he averaged 319, 04 - 324 and 05 - 334.  On the PGA Tour he has gone from 319 down to 315 in three years.

Of course, the only reason numbers go up is because of technology and the only reason they stay the same or go down is age or course setup.

Keep cherry picking the numbers to prove your point. ::)

Chuck Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
2002 PGA Tour Driving Distance average was 279.8 yards.
2008 PGA Tour Driving Distance average was 287.3 yards.
> +7.5 yards
"... any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable..."!?!

Chuck, please consider that the USGA and R&A knew what balls were in the pipeline for 2003 at the time of that statement and used that knowledge in their decision.  The average was 286.6 in 2003.  It has only gone up by 0.7 yards since.
First time I've ever heard that rationalization.  But, so be it if you know that to be true.  My comeback:  of course distance would remain the same.  It would remain the same, because in 2003 to 2008, the Pro V has remained virtually static in terms of its basic specs and design.  (Tiny, player-driven alterations in feel, spin and hardness were undoubtedly l.m.-driven.  The ball has remained basically the same.)  And, there haven't been any huge changes in drivers; my guess is that tour players may be very slowly inching up in terms of average driver shaft length, as they get used to newer, high-tech lightweight designs -- $1000 Oziks, among them -- and that they are also throttling back off the tee more due to ever-more demanding course setups.

And, puting it all together, it tells us that it's all about the ball -- it's not about fitness, or training, or steroids, or fairway grasses, or any of the other bogeymen cited by Titleist's acolytes.
You might have picked Bubba Watson, who has been averaging about 315 to 319 yards for a three years, and who in 2008, had an astonishing, unprecedented, 44.1 percent of his measured drives at 320 yards or longer.  Bubba, with a Pro V and a Ping driver, can hit BOMBS.  That he isn't showing increasing overall driving distance increases year after year is very likely due to course setups and competitive demands.  

Compare apples to apples Chuck.  What was Bubba averaging 10 years ago and how much has he increased since then?  You can't determine how much the ball and club has increased distance just by throwing one player's current numbers into the mix.  We can go back 3 more years in Bubba's history by putting his Nationwide Tour numbers in.  He is getting shorter.  In 2003 he averaged 319, 04 - 324 and 05 - 334.  On the PGA Tour he has gone from 319 down to 315 in three years.

Of course, the only reason numbers go up is because of technology and the only reason they stay the same or go down is age or course setup.

Keep cherry picking the numbers to prove your point. ::)
Already addressed above.  I reject any small sampling whether or not it includes Bubba, Tiger, JD, Corey Pavin, Arnold Palmer, Francis Ouimet or Harry Vardon.  I didn't pick Bubba for a 10-year comparison.  I picked Bubba to confront the assertion that "ProV type balls haven't given anyone extraordinary length..."  See above.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Quote
Let's just not use any two players to make any "full field" generalizations, okay? - Chuck Brown
I chose TW and JD because they rank as two of the hardest swinging players on Tour. As the numbers show, they experienced no extraordinary gains when making the switch to multi layer solid core balls.   

Quote
I think they have; they've given practically every tour player "increased" length, and they have given a few, like Bubba and JB Holmes "extraordinary" length.- Chuck Brown

Players may have gained some length no doubt, but you are wrong about any extraordinary gains. Bubba Watson and JBHolmes could hit a pond ball 350 yards. They are anomalies, like Frank Stasowski, the old Pro at Torrington CC who could hit his one iron onto the 290 yard 13th green. He carried it around 260/270 and ran it the remaining 20/30 yards. This was in 1965. Or anomaly #2, my friend Jerry LaPlaca. I took him down to Yale and he carried a drive to the fringe of the 11th hole. This was around 1990 and he was using a Callaway BB driver (190CC at that time- HUGE!) and a Titleist balata ball. I'll let you look up the yardage for that one. (I hit driver , 9)  ;D
I don't want to make myself sick remembering how long Jerry was, but he only had a 9 iron into the 16th. Scary.

Quote
I reject any small sampling whether or not it includes Bubba, Tiger, JD, Corey Pavin, Arnold Palmer, Francis Ouimet or Harry Vardon - Chuck Brown
I used statistics from forty different players from 2 different generations to show that gains were only 40 yards over 38 years. As Garland's link showed, I was a bit high. It's only a 30 yard gain over that time frame.

 

 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

John Moore II

I have said all along that I don't think the ball is solely the problem. Players are fitted more precisely today than they were 10 years ago. Perfectly fit shafts, perfectly fit heads, perfectly fit golf balls, etc., etc. I read somewhere that Tiger went through 150 sets of irons to find the perfectly fit set he has now. You want to bet he didn't weed through drivers, golf balls and shafts in the same way? And I would make the assumption that nearly all the very top tier players go through a fitting process somewhat similar (if not quite so extreme, if the story and numbers about Tiger are true). I really think precision fitting, the way they do it now, makes a huge difference in the game. And I say precision not Custom for a reason. I have CUSTOM fit golf clubs, but not nearly to the degree that those guys have. Therefore, I say Tour Pros have Precision Fit equipment.

Golf balls have made a big difference, no doubt. But so have the other 'Precision Fit' variables. Go back to standard 'feel' fittings, like most clubmakers do, lie boards, ball flight, 'feel' of shafts, etc. and I don't think the numbers would be so extreme.

I mean, has anyone here seen a fitting done with the Taylor-Made MAT-T system? It fits lie to .1 degree. It fits length to 1/8". Fits flex to exact CPM throughout the set. Calculates ball launch angle to within .01 degree. Calculates spin to within .1 rpm. This machine calculates variables I can't even think of calculating when giving a lesson or fitting. Hand speed, shoulder rotation to within .1 degree, hip rotation to within .1 degree, and I can go on. Folks, this is the fitting that tour players are able to get today. I CAN'T DO THAT! Neither can (hardly) any other club fitter in the world.

You do away with that level of fitting precision, and I really don't think the distance increases are so extreme.

Brock Peyer

  • Karma: +0/-0
I am not going to read the 6 pages of this thread but if they are wanting to govern lofts, why don't they govern lofts of drivers and make 12 degree be the lowest you can play?  Most average golfers would benefit from that but that might hold the guys on TV back a bit,...or would they just tweak a 12 degree to lower the launch and make it play like a 9?  Couldn't they do that with a wedge as well?  You change a 56 to play with more loft.  They ball should be the focus.  Make it spin more and that will have an effect.....I don't think that there is a real solution.

John Moore II

I am not going to read the 6 pages of this thread but if they are wanting to govern lofts, why don't they govern lofts of drivers and make 12 degree be the lowest you can play?  Most average golfers would benefit from that but that might hold the guys on TV back a bit,...or would they just tweak a 12 degree to lower the launch and make it play like a 9?  Couldn't they do that with a wedge as well?  You change a 56 to play with more loft.  They ball should be the focus.  Make it spin more and that will have an effect.....I don't think that there is a real solution.

Changing the lofts on a wedge to get around the rules would be near impossible. You have to actually bend the loft, therefore making it more than allowed. But with a driver, you can change the effective loft by either opening or shutting the face. If you have a 12 degree driver with a 6 degree open face, the effective loft becomes 6 degrees. (The same thing happens today, just the reverse. Men have too much ego to play high lofted drivers, so they guy a 9.5, but fail to notice it has a 3 degree shut face, so the effective loft is 12.5. And that is true for those High Loft clubs that many make now. Those clubs have effecive lofts in the neighborhood of 15-18 degrees, but are stamped 13).

I tell you, I really believe the difference in distance is hyper-accurate club fitting practices that simply didn't exist in the past. The ball makes a difference. Shafts make a difference. Head technology makes a difference. Add them all together precisely and you have a large yardage gain.

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
For the Pros:

- 250cc max heads
- Steel Shafts
- Three piece balata balls
- 11 clubs (10 plus putter)

Let's dance and see what happens.

Leave it the same for the masses, except for Elite Amateur tournaments.

Unfortunately the golf industry would go in the toilet because if Tiger, AK, Man Boobs, Other Man Boobs, etc. are not playing the clubs, then Average Joe will not buy them.

Reduce length, maintenance costs, etc. And make shot making a priority again.

John Moore II

For the Pros:

- 250cc max heads
- Steel Shafts
- Three piece balata balls
- 11 clubs (10 plus putter)

Let's dance and see what happens.

Leave it the same for the masses, except for Elite Amateur tournaments.

Unfortunately the golf industry would go in the toilet because if Tiger, AK, Man Boobs, Other Man Boobs, etc. are not playing the clubs, then Average Joe will not buy them.

Reduce length, maintenance costs, etc. And make shot making a priority again.

OK Fine, just one question: Assuming Man Boobs is Fat Phil, who is Other Man Boobs?

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Colin Mont-boob-erie of course  ;D

John Moore II

Colin Mont-boob-erie of course  ;D

Fair enough. I didn't think about him.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Gotta call bull on all this precision fitting bull. IMO precision fitting would be great stuff if everyone had precision swings. It's like going out and buying a high end stereo system. It's been decades since their precision has gone beyond what anyone can actually hear.

Back at ya, JKM!
 ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
A bit of history from GCA archives given below. It is senseless to talk about a 30 yard gain in 40 years when most of that gain was done in two big yearly steps. The first step was the introduction of the new ball. The second step was the quick adoption of new equipment after launch monitor analysis.

Give them a new ball and they used their 6.5 degree drivers to hit it significantly longer. The result, without the spin, they weren't getting the optimal trajectories that had taken years to establish they should be using a 6.5 degree driver. Next step was to figure out what club to apply to the new ball. This was done quickly with luanch monitors instead of years of trial and error. Therefore there was a second year to year step in increased driver distance. Now I've read that many tour pros are using 11 degree drivers even though they typically have 9.5 stamped on the club head.


Craig Sweet,

It seems to me that you and others insist on ignoring overwhelming facts, and instead repeatedly rely on unsupported anecdote.   

Or maybe I am mistaken.  Let's compare facts and see.  You said:
Quote
You only have to listen to, or read what the old timers say,that nobody ever worked out when they played the game....to see that getting stronger and fine tuning equipment to match swing speed etc...will give you 20 yards more distance right there...

These are your facts???  This is exactly the type of anecdote and storytelling you ridicule immediately prior.

Here are the first of my facts, the Top 75 Average Driving Distance Increases, 2003 season averages minus 2002 season averages.

Ernie Els                21.9
Jose Coceres   19.6
Retief Goosen   19.6
Phil Mickelson   17.2
Andrew Magee   16.4
Vijay Singh   16.3
Mike Sposa   13.8
Chad Campbell   13.1
Billy Mayfair   13.1
Neal Lancaster   12.7
Tommy Armour III   12.3
Craig Perks   12.2
Joe Durant   11.9
Esteban Toledo   11.8
K.J. Choi                11.6
Davis Love III   11.5
Peter Lonard   11.4
Brent Geiberger   11.0
Woody Austin   10.9
Corey Pavin   10.8
Heath Slocum   10.6
Sergio Garcia   10.4
Brenden Pappas   10.2
Briny Baird   10.0
Jonathan Kaye   9.8
David Toms   9.6
Jay Williamson   9.5
Jerry Kelly   9.5
Jim Furyk                9.5
Tom Pernice, Jr.   9.2
Craig Barlow   9.2
Mike Weir                9.2
Scott McCarron   9.1
Kent Jones   8.8
Kenny Perry   8.7
Skip Kendall   8.7
Brian Bateman   8.6
Stewart Cink   8.4
Steve Lowery   8.3
Garrett Willis   8.3
Glen Day                8.3
Harrison Frazar   8.2
Dan Forsman   8.2
Hal Sutton   8.2
Jeff Brehaut   8.1
Robert Allenby   8.1
Ian Leggatt   7.9
Jeff Sluman   7.7
David Frost   7.7
Brad Elder   7.5
John Daly                7.5
Nick Price   7.4
Greg Chalmers   7.4
Brett Quigley   7.3
Carlos Franco   7.3
Jay Don Blake   7.2
Cameron Beckman   7.2
Paul Azinger   7.2
Pat Perez                7.0
Scott Verplank   7.0
Brad Faxon   7.0
Brian Henninger   7.0
David Gossett   6.9
Brandt Jobe   6.9
Kirk Triplett   6.8
Paul Stankowski   6.8
Chris Riley   6.6
Pat Bates   6.5
Kenneth Staton   6.3
Tiger Woods   6.2
John Riegger   6.1
Olin Browne   6.1
Jay Haas                5.9
Brian Gay                5.8
Carl Paulson   5.7

So how do your facts jibe with mine?   
-- Exercise?  Some fantastic exersize program which all these pros suddenly discovered in the short off-season between 2002 and 2003??
-- Fine Tuning the Equipment?   A revolution in fine tuning in December 2002?   
-- Maintenance Practices?  Did superindentants suddenly start cementing fairways between these two seasons?   

Fact is, your tired anecdotes dont even come close to explaining the facts.   

Fact is, all the facts are against your untenable position.   

Or maybe I am wrong . . . Do any of your "facts" prove me wrong?

Quote
I just wish if people want to argue this issue that they get some facts regarding distance. . .

I agree.  So where are your facts??
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
If there is anything about the new ball and why it is the problem that you should remember, it is this, the USGA says it is the ball, stupid!

...
I'm told by the Tech Center that a trajectory like that compared to the old trajectory might gain a high swing speed player app 25-30 yards more carry distance compared to the old high spin rate balls hit at the same swing speed.

That should give you some idea why there has been a distance spike, amongst high swing speed players in app the last decade.

...
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Like it or not, you're more than likely never going to see those gains given back because they were honest gains, no one cheated their way to more yardage.
 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Like it or not, you're more than likely never going to see those gains given back because they were honest gains, no one cheated their way to more yardage.
 


Jim,

This whole thread is about what the USGA is actually doing to cause those gains to be given back. Currently they are attacking the issue with the groove rule and a possible loft limitation rule. The have requested prototype balls from manufacturers and as far as I know have not abandoned the ball study.

As far as the cheating goes, in fact the new balls circumvented the spirit and intent of the rules against putting substances on the club face to alter spin while not literally violating a rule.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm fully aware of what this thread is about, and if you read my earlier posts you would see that I agree with the path that the USGA is taking. I'll say it again, the gains players made were done within the confines of the rules and were honest achievements. You won't be seeing them taken back by the USGA, but you will see other tactics on their part, like changes to grooves & lofts, that will create the need for someplayers to ask for higher spinning balls which will have the side effect of shortening them up.

 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm fully aware of what this thread is about, and if you read my earlier posts you would see that I agree with the path that the USGA is taking. I'll say it again, the gains players made were done within the confines of the rules and were honest achievements. You won't be seeing them taken back by the USGA, but you will see other tactics on their part, like changes to grooves & lofts, that will create the need for someplayers to ask for higher spinning balls which will have the side effect of shortening them up.

 


And part of the reason I am posting here is to combat the misinformation you have been posting. E.g.

Very simple. All the 'significant gains' that technology (every bit of it) has produced have added roughly 40 yards to the drive in 38 years( or 1 yd per yr), and ProV type balls haven't given anyone extraordinary length, as shown by the pre 2000 and post 2000 yardages that two of these top ten players hit the ball.  
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Chuck Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
...
Changing the lofts on a wedge to get around the rules would be near impossible. You have to actually bend the loft, therefore making it more than allowed. But with a driver, you can change the effective loft by either opening or shutting the face. If you have a 12 degree driver with a 6 degree open face, the effective loft becomes 6 degrees. (The same thing happens today, just the reverse. Men have too much ego to play high lofted drivers, so they guy a 9.5, but fail to notice it has a 3 degree shut face, so the effective loft is 12.5. And that is true for those High Loft clubs that many make now. Those clubs have effecive lofts in the neighborhood of 15-18 degrees, but are stamped 13).

I tell you, I really believe the difference in distance is hyper-accurate club fitting practices that simply didn't exist in the past. The ball makes a difference. Shafts make a difference. Head technology makes a difference. Add them all together precisely and you have a large yardage gain.
There's a good bit of this that I agree with. 
~As for lofts, and chekcing lofts:  I think it is a simple matter to take a 58 degree wedge and bend it to 60.  You've added 2 degrees of bounce in the process, so you might want to grind the sole a bit and add the lost weight in lead tape.  Elite players, not currently faced with any loft restrictions, frequently bend their wedges strong, routinely to lessen the bounce angle; they are so good, they don't need the trouble-shot help that bounce affords.  Bending a wedge, in and of itself is easy.  I've bent every one of my gamer wedges for the last twenty years in some fashion.  (Strong, flat, etc.)
~As for driver lofts, John has it exactly right.  And the advantage of a 12 degree + driver loft rule might well extend to the elite players again.  Elite players are routinely (not always, but routinely) looking for more open face angles, because they want to cut out the left side of the fairway and they don't need to fight a slice the way Joe Weekend does.  Vijay has long been rumored to play a 10.5 degree driver that is six degree open.  Vijay hates hooks.
~All of these loft rules may be easy to skirt, and are more in the way of hyper-technical nibbling around the edges of the ball issue.  If there is general agreement that the balls are going too far (I am not presuming that), then let's please jsut address the ball.  I really dread the notion of more technical rules on clubs, when some simple rules on balls would be better.
~Even if excessive length is not the direct result of the ball, "the ball" is still the easiest thing to regulate.  Balls are what they are, and we all buy new ones every year.
~Which brings us to one of those things that John mentioned, 21st century launch-monitoring.  And John is right, I think.  There is some amazing and very helpful information to be gleaned from them.
But John, I put it to you.\:  While it is simply amazing for a recreational player to go through that process, I think it may be less so for a tour player.  I've always maintained that the best launch monitor is a tour pro.  They see, and understand, what their ballflight is telling them.  They have constant access to new stuff and testing opportunities.  Launch monitors are chiefly helpful to them in terms of saving time, and swings, to figure out what is working best.  If they ultimately get some yardage out of it, I won't argue too much with you.
But I still say this:  We can't, and won't, "outlaw" launch monitor testing.  We can't stop that activity any more than we can stop players from working out.  And why should we?  It is one of those areas in which I say, "the tour players do it, and if you want to keep up, Joe Weekend, you should too."  I'd say the same for launch monitors.  I look forward to the day when a Trackman costs $300 and not $30,000.  I think anything that provides any level of player with more knowledge about the game is good.  I'd encourage more players to save the money they'd spend on dozens of Pro V's and instead spend those dollars with a qualified professional and clubfitter.  Like you.

So back to you John:  Assuming, arguendo, that launch monitors and modern drivers are the cause of big distance gains, would you agree that the easiest thing to adjust is still the ball?

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Garland,
You're entitled to your opinion, for what it's worth, but I can guarantee you that you will never hear me say something as misinformed as this:

"As far as the cheating goes, in fact the new balls circumvented the spirit and intent of the rules against putting substances on the club face to alter spin while not literally violating a rule."-Garland Bayley

 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 11:57:51 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Garland,
You're entitled to your opinion, for what it's worth, but I can guarantee you that you will never hear me say something as misinformed as this:

"As far as the cheating goes, in fact the new balls circumvented the spirit and intent of the rules against putting substances on the club face to alter spin while not literally violating a rule."-Garland Bayley

 

Well, I wouldn't say it was misinformed, but perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. The rule was to prevent one player from gaining an advantage for the other. In the case of the modern ball, both players have the opportunity of buying it and putting it in play. That does not alter the fact that it achieved an effect similar to the pros putting vaseline on their drivers to enable them to hit the ball farther.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

John Moore II

Gotta call bull on all this precision fitting bull. IMO precision fitting would be great stuff if everyone had precision swings.
Back at ya, JKM!
 ;D

Garland, if you think Tiger, Phil, Ernie Els, even Jim Furyk with his loopy move, don't have precision swings, I really question your understanding of golf. I would question if any of the players on tour would ever miss a fairway and ever miss a green if they simply aimed down the center of the fairway everytime and to the center of the green. I would honestly say that anyone on tour can hit 90-95% of all greens in regulation if simply playing to the center. They generally miss the green when they try to hit to a tucked pin.

Any player on tour has a precise enough swing to benefit from the hyper-accurate clubfitting that I described above. I, (and most reading this) on the other hand, are not good enough to see exceptional results from this precision fitting. But I can promise you, a player on the level of Martin Laird (he finished #125 on the PGA money list this year) is good enough to reap the benefits from hyper-accurate precision fitting.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Precision swings are why I hear comments like "that came up significantly short, it sounded like he caught it a little heavy" on the broadcast of Tiger's little party this weekend?

There is no way that adjusting a loft to .1 degree is going to make any difference in anyones golf scores, not Tiger's, not Furyk's, not anyones. Those guys can take the loft of what they have and hit it different distances and at different heights and they could care less what the loft is as long as they get a chance to play with it and learn what they can do with it.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2008, 03:22:23 PM by Garland Bayley »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back