Dear Steve Smyers

[David_Tepper]

"I still have my first set of irons, 1971 model Wilson X-31's (thick flanges, very thin top line, +1.5" over standard length ( I am 6'-5")).   
They are very heavy clubs.  Do not know where the [real] woods are."

post by Carl Rogers on another thread

Garland B. -

This is what I was talking about.

DT

[Paul_Turner]

Garland

From the paper, the stats showed an average 11-12 yards gain from 2000-2005 for all players (weak and strong).  And since this 2000-2005 time frame included the switch from wound to solid ball (plus other tech improvements)....I don't see where the 25yds figure comes from?

Unless it's for all tech changes in about the last 15-20 years?

[Garland Bayley]

"I still have my first set of irons, 1971 model Wilson X-31's (thick flanges, very thin top line, +1.5" over standard length ( I am 6'-5")).   
They are very heavy clubs.  Do not know where the [real] woods are."

post by Carl Rogers on another thread

Garland B. -

This is what I was talking about.

DT

I guess I don't know what you mean. Someone in 1971 bought a set of clubs to match their height, because they were taller than usual. So they could get a set of clubs that fit apparently without trying too hard. Seems to be what I mean.

[David_Tepper]

Quote from: Chuck Brown on August 22, 2010, 04:28:16 AM
Quote from: Jim Nugent on August 22, 2010, 04:22:39 AM
Quote from: David_Tepper on August 22, 2010, 01:53:03 AM

My guess is lighter weight shafts and advances in club fitting have enabled tall golfers to learn and play the game a little more easily. This could be what Steve Smyers is speaking about. If you recall, George Archer looked rather stooped and hunched over the ball at address. This may have been a function of having to play with clubs ill-suited for someone of his height.

DT
 

In the 1960's, my recollection is that a driver could be no more than 43" long.  Am I right about that?
No.
Standard was 43.5" for all drivers, and they could be longer.  Of course with steel and solid persimmon heads, much longer turned into unGodly swingweights.  Unless you backweighted, which turned in the unGodly static weights.

This alone might be the reason most top golfers back then were under 6', with many way under.

Garland -

The question I am asking is did the limitation of heavier weight shafts and clubheads in the 1940's-50's make it difficult, even for the relatively few customer clubfitters of that era , to properly fit (in terms of swing weight, static weight, balance, etc.) a very tall person? Carl Rogers says his 1.5' longer shafts produced a "heavy" set of clubs. Since you are the clubfitting expert, do today's options in clubheads and shafts make it easier to produce extra-length clubs that are not "heavy?"

DT          

[Garland Bayley]

David,

Since I was not a club fitter back then (and I am a very amateur one now) I can't tell you exactly what they did back then. Yes, I believe it must be easier to fit someone now. However, I have read that they would drill holes in the clubheads to lighten them back then. Sometimes they would drill holes and fill with lead to make them heavier.

I don't necessarily think heavy clubs are a bad thing. I have read that the standard swingweight for off the rack clubs comes in at D2. I assume that is pretty accurate, because one of the first clubs I built, I built to standard specs and it came out D2 on my swingweight scale. I have read that the pros typically play something in the D9 range. I built my clubs 1/2" long fit me and still had to add weight to get them up to the D6 that I was fitted to.

Just so you know, I am 6' 5" also. I believe it is pretty unusual for clubs to need to be 1 1/2" long. The person in question, must have shorter arms relative to his overall height.


EDIT: By the way, I have read that both Ben Hogan and Sam Snead needed much heavier clubs than normal to achieve better results. My guess is the more you play, the stronger you become, the heavier the club you need.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The interesting point be it 12 yards or 25 yards, the equipment has created a gain, hurting the majority of our existing courses with sweet FA coming from our Governing Bodies. Scores have been affected by the introduction of equipment and no by the golfer.

So I repeat in reverse format my post reply #92 starting with the PS

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.

The one consistency is that there is no consistency in golfing equipment from the start. Thus exposing the only flaw in the Game of Golf.

Today we are paying for the lack of controlling the technology in Golf

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

MHM:

How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.[/u]

Allan Robertson may well have asked Old Tom Morris the same question when he started using the guttie.

Technology has undoubtedly both enhanced and detracted from our game, and with so many people playing the game worldwide for so many different reasons, I think some of us do underestimate the complexity of the task that faces the powers that be in working out which areas should be rolled back.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

Perhaps you need to understand the circumstances of why another ball was used before making a comment about Allan and Old Tom.
 
Pity the facts don't support your comment, but then your intention was to cause some mischief.

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

"PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use."

That statement makes the short list of the most nonsensical things I have ever read here. Golf equipment has been relentlessly changing and evolving for 150+ years. Golfers have had the option of choosing the equipment that best suits their size, strength, age, ability and the conditions of the course they are playing for that entire time.

If golfers used to rut-iron in the 1800's does that imply they did not love the game?
Since Gene Sarazen invented the sand wedge, does that mean he did not love the game?
When Ray Floyd replaced his 2-iron with a 5-wood to set the scoring record at the Masters some 30+ years ago, does that mean he did not love the game?
When Gary Player regularly changed the bounce on his sand wedge to suit the type of sand in the bunkers on the course he was playing in any given week, does that mean he did not love the game?
When I replace my 4-iron with a 24-degree hybrid (because it is so much easier to hit!), does that mean I do not love the game?

There is no doubt in my mind the answer to all those questions is "No."            

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn,

My point is that supporters of technological advancement (such as Old Tom) had their arguments for forging ahead with new types of golf balls in the 19th Century just as proponents of the haskell ball, steel shafts and metal woods had their valid reasons during the 20th century and those behind 460cc heads and balls with 3 layered covers, 7 mantles and 6 cores have strong arguments in the current decade.

This is not the black and white argument you have spent a long time and many posts on this website trying to portray it as.

I would love to see some changes made that remove the necessity to make major changes to great courses for the sake of professional golf, but I don't subscribe to a blanket opposition to technological advancement.

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

There is a difference. The primary reason the ProV balls were introduced was to create extra distance.

The reason the guttie was introduced was to cut down expense, and to be more uniform.

I don't think you can fault people for disliking the reason the ProV was created.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Why am I not surprised by your comment, but then you do not read the whole thread just the parts that you want, so my point again is.

The one consistency is that there is no consistency in golfing equipment from the start. Thus exposing the only flaw in the Game of Golf.

Today we are paying for the lack of controlling the technology in Golf

Melvyn

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use

So David are you saying they all cheated and knew it? Wow


Scott

Technology has never been controlled but by the coming of the Haskell the equipment was at a stage that it gave the game a fluid and consistent level to start taking control, thus making certain that any reduction in the score was not down to the equipment but solely down to the golfers ability and improving skill.


Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

Garland:

Gutties also flew straighter, rolled further and were more durable, a fact I am sure was not lost on the best golfers of the day who elected to make the change.

Melvyn:

Technology has never been controlled but by the coming of the Haskell the equipment was at a stage that it gave the game a fluid and consistent level to start taking control, thus making certain that any reduction in the score was not down to the equipment but solely down to the golfers ability and improving skill.

I don't understand what you mean.

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

I think you have to qualify that flew straighter bit. It wasn't necessarily so.

[paul cowley]

Steve and Jeff...

Guys...regular golfers...I would just go with the evolutionary flow and enjoy the game. The big boys play something different that we need not emulate. I would suggest they lower tournament par to whatever equals their real par, but not diminish the course in the process...par 66 or 67 would be good for most tour venues. Change par fives to fours etc...fours to threes...who cares.

The golf game will always continue to evolve....equipment and courses will find a way.

Not as sure about Garland's GCA soapbox.

[David_Tepper]

Melvyn -

I can assure you, I read your post. Since the passage of yours I quoted was one you had both underlined and put in bold-face, I assumed it contained an important point you were trying to make. Is that not the case?

I do not know how you possibly could come to the conclusion that I anything I said in any way implied that the use of rut irons or the actions of Sarazen, Floyd, Player & myself in any way constituted cheating or disrespect for the game of golf. If anything, my statements and declaration clearly stated the opposite.

Berhard Langer used a broom-stick putter to win both the British & U.S. Senior Opens this summer. Clearly, they enabled Langer to shoot a lower score in these events than he might have using a conventional putter.

Here are some very simple questions.

1) Do you believe his use of that putter in any way implies Langer does not love the game of golf?
2) Do you believe his use of that putter in any means he cheated either himself or the game of golf?

These are questions you can answer yes or no if you care to.

DT

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

I will again refer you to my comments re threads #92 & 95 as well as my previous comments on the lack of action by the Governing Body.

Paul

I am happy for the game to evolve but not to be kidnapped. Turning ones back on what seems totally wrong so that scores can be reduced by one’s equipment and not down to the skill of the golfer is quite frankly a bloody disgrace and clearly sends out a message about those who advocate this approach. I for one have no wish to evolve into a cheap cheat. I had always held golfers in high regard believing most are honest and want to achieve improvements by their own efforts. Perhaps some may be more than happy to see their score reduce by any means – pity.

Melvyn