[Ted Sturges]

And to Brett Hutto:

Please enlighten all of us on what you would specifically change in Hogan's swing to improve on it (this ought to be good). 

TS

No idea. I'm not a swing teacher.

I also don't know why my Honda Civic produces more horsepower than Chevy Nova did in the 70's. But it does.

And I don't know why a college kid can throw a slider with more velocity than Bob Gibson could throw fastball. But he does.

I really can't imagine any reason other than petty argumentation for its own sake that you'd posit the notion that zero improvements have been made in how to swing a golf club since Ben Hogan's day. Just how far back does perfection run in your alternate reality field? Was Young Tom Morris's swing also just as good as Hogan's?

You guys keep saying The Ball The Clubs The Ball The Club BLAH BLAH F---ING BLAH. Well OK I'm with you. The equipment and balls today produce a lot of distance.

That doesn't change the fact that golfers today are also stronger, produce more clubhead speed and have benefitted from half a century of study and incremental improvement in swing mechanics since Ben Hogan was learning the game. And don't give me that nonsense about lighter drivers. Bubba Watson can swing a sand wedge 30-40mph faster than Ben Hogan could swing a sand wedge. Hand him Ben Hogan's wedge and he'll still swing it faster because he's stronger and faster.

So as John Stiles says, of course the ball can be rolled back. Technically it's an almost trivial thing, just the politics and money stand in the way. But if the wet dream of a rollback were to occur, just don't expect it will lead to the 2033 US Open being played by a bunch of guys bunting the ball around Hogan-esque distances. The ball has changed for the longer...but everything else in the game has changed for the longer at that same time. And you can't roll back fitness and swing mechanics.

Brent,

This is fine and all, but at the end of the day...it's just your opinion, without anything concrete to support some pretty bold statements you have made.  Some may agree with you, but lots won't.  Facts to support your bold statements would allow you to gain credibility.

TS

[Brent Hutto]

I think observing that Justin Rose produces more clubhead speed than Ben Hogan is about as bold as stating that it's warmer today than it was last Christmas.

[Ted Sturges]

I think observing that Justin Rose produces more clubhead speed than Ben Hogan is about as bold as stating that it's warmer today than it was last Christmas.

Channeling my inner Ronald Reagan:    "...there you go again"

Brent,  Where's your proof?  Would it ever occur to you that if we could observe both men in the prime of their careers, swinging the same club (we can't) it might produce results different from your definitive statement that Rose's swing generates more clubhead speed than Hogan's? 

Please provide ANY evidence that Rose's swing generates more clubhead speed (a very easy thing to measure with a launch monitor) than Mr. Hogan could generate swinging the exact same golf club.  And please...no more vaugue references to your Honda Accord or the weather...looking for anything factual that you could base your argument on.

TS

[Brent Hutto]

I am not talking silly speculation and hypotheticals. I have no idea what kind of swing Ben Hogan might have hypothetically had if he'd been born in 1980 instead of 1912. I am referring to the actual Ben Hogan not an alternate history straw man.

[Ted Sturges]

I am not talking silly speculation and hypotheticals. I have no idea what kind of swing Ben Hogan might have hypothetically had if he'd been born in 1980 instead of 1912. I am referring to the actual Ben Hogan not an alternate history straw man.

Thanks for adding this clarity to your argument.  This makes it crystal clear.   

[John Percival]

Regarding the rough...many courses 40 years ago had single row irrigation. Now days, many have the capacity to water deep into the rough, thus enabling them to grow it as nasty as they want.
Also, having lived in Allentown and knowing PA's spring weather, firm and fast was pie in the sky. It's cool and wet 90% of years. Thus, it would be interesting to know what the 'real' set-up conversations were like.

[David Stewart]

I am not talking silly speculation and hypotheticals. I have no idea what kind of swing Ben Hogan might have hypothetically had if he'd been born in 1980 instead of 1912. I am referring to the actual Ben Hogan not an alternate history straw man.

The date of birth isn't the important thing here. The biggest difference was the weight of the club each player was/is using. You can't compare Hogan's swing speed to Rose's just by observing them because they were swinging clubs with significantly different weights. It is not an apples to apples comparison. Go swing your driver then grab a sledge hammer and see which you can swing faster.

I think the points Mr. Plumart made about baseball/track athletes of 50+ years ago having similar performance to today's athletes are good. They have not had major equipment changes, and perform on a similar scale. Do today's baseball players swing faster than Mickey Mantle with their "technically optimized swings"? If so why don't they hit the ball farther than he did?

[Tom Bagley]

Today's players may produce more clubhead speed, but how much of it is due to equipment?  In major league baseball, where the bat has changed little over the past 50 years, today's players are not hitting the ball appreciably further, despite gains in fitness, swing mechanics, etc.  In golf, however, we are to believe that the equipment has not been the major factor in high swing speeds, ball speed and distance?

Why then is Jay Haas 14 yards longer in 2013 as a 59 year-old than he was as a 29 year-old in 1983 (268 yards vs. 254).  Even at age 39 (1993), his driving average was still only 260.

Why is the 53 year-old Fred Couples longer in 2013 (287 yards), than he was at 33 years-old (275) or 23 years-old (271)?

Why is Davis Love at 49 years-old (293 yards), 13 yards longer than he was at age 29, and 7 yards longer than his first full year on tour (1986) when he led the Tour in driving distance?

In what other sports, do athletes gain strength and speed through their 40s and into their 50s?  Yes, Julius Erving can still dunk, but is his vertical leap, speed and strength what is was in his youth?  If so, why isn't he still playing?

[Ted Sturges]

It has something to do with the efficiency of a 2013 Honda Civic...

[John Percival]

Regarding equipment, new v old
First of all, were I king, we'd still be playing hickory.

The equipment obviously makes a huge difference, as the age/distance comparison shows. And yes, the ball, the shafts and the head designs all contribute. But I think the greatest contribution, especially at the younger ages (teens thru mid thirties) is the 'effective hitting area'. NO MATTER THE CLUB HEAD DESIGN, all sweet spots are the same size - the head of a pin. It is the area just around that sweet spot that I call the 'e.h.a.' It is there that the shot looses some accuracy and power, but only slightly. In the old equipment, that 'eha' was a very small ring, so there was a great premium on precision. Now, that ring has expanded greatly (especially on drivers) so that mishits still result in high quality results. A sobering example came about 11 years ago when I was still teaching. Before my lessons started, I was hitting some drivers with an old persimmon (that I still play with once a year). A young mini-tour player was nearby, had never seen lumber and I had him hit a few. He barely got any airborne and none flew more than 150 yards. After 5 shots, he returned it with trembling hands and a look of absolute terror. Could he adapt to the persimmons characteristics over time? Sure, but it would take not only a modification in his mechanics, but a modification of his aggressiveness and expectations.
Anyone can experience the same sensations, on a smaller scale, by rolling some putts with an old bullseye putter.

[JESII]

How about as an initial fact to support Brent's case...Rose hit a 4 iron over the green while Hogan hit a 1 iron onto it.

[Tom Bagley]

John P:
You are absolutely right.

[David Stewart]

How about as an initial fact to support Brent's case...Rose hit a 4 iron over the green while Hogan hit a 1 iron onto it.

Again, this doesn't prove anything until Rose goes out there with the 1 iron Hogan used and the ball Hogan used and hits the same shot. Additionally, as lofts have continued to get stronger, a 4 iron today is more like a 2 or 3 iron in the 1950s.

[ChipOat]

Tom Bagley et al,

John Miller remarked that Mickelson hits it further at 43 than when he was younger, in addition to Tom's examples above.  Phil CARRIED his second shot on the 54th hole 275 yards, slightly uphill, with a 4 metal (probably 3 metal loft).  He hit it hard and he hit it pure, but - wow!  Also, Sam Snead once remarked that at 60, a certain par 3 at Pinehurst was 2 clubs shorter for him than when he was 30 - and Snead had huge flexibility right up until the end.

My answer is old news, but the question was asked so.......

In order of importance:

1) the ball;
2) the ball;
3) the driver head;
3a) fairway metal heads;
4) the ball;
5) physical conditioning and stamina;
6) all non-steel shafts;
7) the ball;
players swing harder (bomb and gouge);
9) probably some technique, as well, although I don't know enough to comment on it.

And the college kids hit it even further!

[Jim Sherma]

John's comment is why I am convinced that iy is essentially impossible to dominate at the top end of the game with ball striking alone. Everyone at that level can hit the E.H.A. consistently and small deviations from perfect are not penalized proportionally as they were with the older equipment.

I also break out persimmon and old blades at different parts of the year and it takes me 10-15 swings to tone down the driver swing in order to consistently hit the center of the smaller face. I certainly hit the ball longer at 46 than I did at 18 and it is certainly the equipment that causes it. Part and parcel with htis is the swing that the equipment allows for. Only the really great or really stupid would not have to tone down their swings given an old schoold driver. Younger players who grew up with the new equipment never had to learn how much precision was really required to be a reasonably good driver of the ball. What Norman did with the persimmon driver was otherworldly.

Regarding equipment, new v old
First of all, were I king, we'd still be playing hickory.

The equipment obviously makes a huge difference, as the age/distance comparison shows. And yes, the ball, the shafts and the head designs all contribute. But I think the greatest contribution, especially at the younger ages (teens thru mid thirties) is the 'effective hitting area'. NO MATTER THE CLUB HEAD DESIGN, all sweet spots are the same size - the head of a pin. It is the area just around that sweet spot that I call the 'e.h.a.' It is there that the shot looses some accuracy and power, but only slightly. In the old equipment, that 'eha' was a very small ring, so there was a great premium on precision. Now, that ring has expanded greatly (especially on drivers) so that mishits still result in high quality results. A sobering example came about 11 years ago when I was still teaching. Before my lessons started, I was hitting some drivers with an old persimmon (that I still play with once a year). A young mini-tour player was nearby, had never seen lumber and I had him hit a few. He barely got any airborne and none flew more than 150 yards. After 5 shots, he returned it with trembling hands and a look of absolute terror. Could he adapt to the persimmons characteristics over time? Sure, but it would take not only a modification in his mechanics, but a modification of his aggressiveness and expectations.
Anyone can experience the same sensations, on a smaller scale, by rolling some putts with an old bullseye putter.

[Brent Hutto]

There's no substitute for clubhead speed, though. A guy who can swing a driver at 140mph has an advantage over a guy who can only swing at 120mph...even if the 140mph swinger throttles back to 120mph because of equipment or other circumstances.

Forget persimmon versus titanium. An elite modern player can produce far more clubhead speed with a wedge than elite players could 50 years ago. And wedges have not gotten longer or lighter to any meaningful degree.

It's irrational to believe that unlike every other human activity we might think of, golf is somehow immune to the fact that athletes get stronger, fitter, faster, more flexible and develop better technique over a period of decades.

Sure a ProV1 performs far, far, far, far, far better than a golf ball made of rubber band windings covered with Balata. But that doesn't change the fact that a top Tour player today has physical and technique capabilities beyond those of player three generations earlier. And legislate all you want about the ball or clubs, you can't legislate against clubhead speed and you can't legislate away strength and conditioning.

[ChipOat]

Brent,

You are, of course, correct.

However, tests on "Iron Byron" with different equipment, balls and swing speeds confirm that the major factor re: increased distance is - the ball.

Jim Sherma,

I am puzzled that you find any success when you experiment with today's ball and persimmon drivers.  Both Iron Byron and Davis Love, III (he was the last holdout on tour with a wooden driver) have tried that same combination.  For both the human and the machine, the new ball goes out about 200 yards and dives straight down.  The ball's aerodynamics just don't work unless combined with all the cool stuff that the oversize titanium drivers offer (I don't know why).

How do you do it?

[Brent Hutto]

I recognize and acknowledge the effect of the ball. My participation on this thread was merely intended to point out that if you want to rollback the ball that's one thing. But if you want to roll back the performance of elite golfer to 1950 levels, you'll have to take the ball rollback much farther than 1950 because other factors have not stood still these last 50 years.

[Jim Sherma]

Brent,

Jim Sherma,

I am puzzled that you find any success when you experiment with today's ball and persimmon drivers.  Both Iron Byron and Davis Love, III (he was the last holdout on tour with a wooden driver) have tried that same combination.  For both the human and the machine, the new ball goes out about 200 yards and dives straight down.  The ball's aerodynamics just don't work unless combined with all the cool stuff that the oversize titanium drivers offer (I don't know why).

How do you do it?

Chip

There is no problem with the irons obviously. As far as the driver goes I have not seen that problem with newer balls. I usually try to use a lower compression ball like a Precept Lady-IQ or a Noodle. I also usually use either a 1050's Hagen 2-wood or a 1960's Wilson 2-wood and have a low launch angle relying on roll. This is no different than when I was a kid back in the early 80's. The last time I took one out it was a Louisville Golf driver that I picked up new in the early 90's and when I hit it well the ball still moves out fine with no "falling out of the sky" phenomenon. They do not get the late rise that the old wound balls did however.

Jim

[jeffwarne]

And to Brett Hutto:

Please enlighten all of us on what you would specifically change in Hogan's swing to improve on it (this ought to be good). 

TS

No idea. I'm not a swing teacher.

I also don't know why my Honda Civic produces more horsepower than Chevy Nova did in the 70's. But it does.

And I don't know why a college kid can throw a slider with more velocity than Bob Gibson could throw fastball. But he does.

I really can't imagine any reason other than petty argumentation for its own sake that you'd posit the notion that zero improvements have been made in how to swing a golf club since Ben Hogan's day. Just how far back does perfection run in your alternate reality field? Was Young Tom Morris's swing also just as good as Hogan's?

You guys keep saying The Ball The Clubs The Ball The Club BLAH BLAH F---ING BLAH. Well OK I'm with you. The equipment and balls today produce a lot of distance.

That doesn't change the fact that golfers today are also stronger, produce more clubhead speed and have benefitted from half a century of study and incremental improvement in swing mechanics since Ben Hogan was learning the game. And don't give me that nonsense about lighter drivers. Bubba Watson can swing a sand wedge 30-40mph faster than Ben Hogan could swing a sand wedge. Hand him Ben Hogan's wedge and he'll still swing it faster because he's stronger and faster.

So as John Stiles says, of course the ball can be rolled back. Technically it's an almost trivial thing, just the politics and money stand in the way. But if the wet dream of a rollback were to occur, just don't expect it will lead to the 2033 US Open being played by a bunch of guys bunting the ball around Hogan-esque distances. The ball has changed for the longer...but everything else in the game has changed for the longer at that same time. And you can't roll back fitness and swing mechanics.

All very true, + kids start golf and enjoy their youth with lightweight, properly flexed and lofted clubs that allow them to develop good technique, rather than compensatory moves dictated by stiff cut down poorly lofted clubs.

Nonetheless, I hi it significantly longer at 50 than I did at 20, and at best static would be a good word for my fitness and conditioning efforts of the last 30 years.
 I'd say the quality of the balls and clubs is the biggest single factor in distance gains, but good players are no doubt stronger and have better technique than ever before, and that multiplies the effect of modern equipment.

[Brent Hutto]

I'd say the quality of the balls and clubs is the biggest single factor in distance gains, but good players are no doubt stronger and have better technique than ever before, and that multiplies the effect of modern equipment.

And with that I'd agree 100%.

A rollback would potentially result in a game played quite differently but it would be some new game different than today's, different than the 1950, different than any game in between. The only we'd know what would actually happen (as opposed to what we intended to happen) would be to try it.

[JESII]

Chip,

I have to ask...how is it that the approach to 18 is uphill?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Ted,

I don't label anybody as being in the rollback world, I leave it simply to those responding to the question...

Seriously, wouldn't the easiest thing be to just leave the courses alone and let the players shoot lower scores?

Least expensive, least controversial, most unified way of moving forward...

But if we do nothing...where does it end?

If one were to graph the tour pro distance increases the last 30 years alone (I haven't done this but would be curious to see the results of anyone who has), in another 20 years they'll be hitting 450 yard drives and 250 yard 7 irons.

People keep saying this but I don't think it is true - look at the data. 

According to the PGA tour Driving Distance Stats - #1 in 2013 hits it 305 and #100 hits it 287.  For 2003 #1 hit it 321 (maybe an aberration) but #100 hit it 286.  in 2005 #1 was 319 and #100 was 289.  So in the last decade distance has not changed, at least when it comes to driving.  And I am not cherry picking years, look at other years since 2003.

And comparing how far a 7 iron is hit today vs the past is very tricky to do as you have to adjust for loft, club length, etc.  The 7 iron of today is the 6 iron from 1971.

[Brent Hutto]

Wayne's correct. Since the "Driving Distance-All Holes" stats became available in 2003 the 100th-longest stat has been remarkably consistent: 277, 279, 281, 280, 281, 280, 279, 281, 281, 282 for 2003-2012 with 279 so far in 2013. The top spot for longest hitter varies a bit more but still over a small range: 302, 298, 303, 305, 302, 303, 301, 300, 306, 309 and then 296 so far this year.

Hard to see much of a trend at all. On Tour the driving distant has been on a plateau for at least a decade. Extrapolate that forward another decade if you wish...

[Joe Bausch]

Wayne's correct. Since the "Driving Distance-All Holes" stats became available in 2003 the 100th-longest stat has been remarkably consistent: 277, 279, 281, 280, 281, 280, 279, 281, 281, 282 for 2003-2012 with 279 so far in 2013. The top spot for longest hitter varies a bit more but still over a small range: 302, 298, 303, 305, 302, 303, 301, 300, 306, 309 and then 296 so far this year.

Hard to see much of a trend at all. On Tour the driving distant has been on a plateau for at least a decade. Extrapolate that forward another decade if you wish...

Are we certain that these driving distances have the players always hitting driver?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()