[Pete Lavallee]

Erik,

I take it that you never played in the persimmon and balata era? There seems to be a large divide between golfers who grew up this way and lament the loss of skill and golfers who never knew anything but whaling away as hard as they could with a 460cc driver and a ball which refuses to curve.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I take it that you never played in the persimmon and balata era? There seems to be a large divide between golfers who grew up this way and lament the loss of skill and golfers who never knew anything but whaling away as hard as they could with a 460cc driver and a ball which refuses to curve.

I did. My first set of clubs, bought with my combination birthday/Christmas money, was a set of muscleback Jack Nicklaus MacGregor VIP Tourney irons… with the matching set of woods, 1, 3, and 5. My dad cracked my 5-wood after a few years, but I still have the other two… and the irons.

And though I'd play the DT Wound for practice, often, I too put my fair share of smileys into my fair share of balata balls.

Actually, Pete, I already responded in this topic with the info above in response to the guys supposedly hitting 4-irons into a 400-yard hole.

[Pat Burke]

I think the focus on distance misses the mark of Laz's article to some extent.  In some ways the more interesting point is the additional artistry associated with hitting clubs that do not provide as much margin for error with misses.


With that caveat, I thought it would be interesting to compare the 85th ranked tour player in 2007 and 2017.  The 85th place player is generally good enough to compete at a high level.  Just eyeballing it, it does not appear that changes at the top of the statistics really change the analysis all that much.


In 2007 the 85th ranked swing speed was 113.4.  By 2017 it has only increased to 114.4 which would theoretically add around 2.5 yards.


In 2007 the 85th ranked ball speed was 166.69.  In 2017 it was 169.5.  Thus, it increased 2.8 MPH, which would theoretically add 4.2 yards.


In 2007 the 85th ranked driving distance was 290.4.  In 2017 it increased to 294.0 - a 3.6 yard increase and between the distances predicted by swing speed and ball speed.


Carry distance has changed pretty significantly.  In 2007 it was 268.  In 2017 it was 281. 


These numbers suggest to me that the technology limitations put in place in 2002 have successfully limited the distance players are able to achieve due to technology.  Historically, distances have increased 1-2 yards per year independent of any technological advance likely due to improved technique or competition forcing out shorter players. 


The reduction in the difference between the 85th ranked carry distance and total distance is interesting and might suggest the distance numbers are not comparable.  In 2007,  the difference between 85th ranged carry distance and 85th ranked total distance was around 22 yards.  In 2017 it was 13.  I do not know whether players are choosing to sacrifice roll in favor of carry distance or if courses have been altered to limit roll.  Either explanation is plausible.

Very much an opinion from me, but based on my experience.  I wasn't playing at all from 2002-2011.  In 2011, I was convinced to give Champions golf a shot by our members.  I started looking for equipment to play.  I still had the same basic bag I had used in 2000.
When I tested at Callaway, I was amazed at the difference in the ball flight they were recommending.  I was launching my old driver at about 9.5 degrees with a little over 3000 rpms.  In about two hours, I left with a driver that was 10.5 and I was trying to launch the ball about 12 degrees.  I got up to about 260 yard carry with that change (from 250)
In 2015, due to my struggles hitting the ball high enough, especially with my irons, I made some significant swing changes.  Inside that two hour lesson with David Leadbetter, I increased the height of my stock six iron by about 30 feet, and also started to launch my driver consistently at my ideal of 13 degrees   I gained another 7 yards or so with the same driver I was using.  (I had lost a few yards of carry previously)


So, again IMO, your numbers likely reflect the he ever evolving knowledge we are gaining in R&D to dial in our ideal launch characteristics for every club.  Justin Thomas' numbers are staggering, and creating some very interesting ideas on efficiency and power.  Likely research will produce a lot more speed/power even if the current balls/clubs are flatlined as some alledge

[Thomas Dai]

If the equipment used means the ball goes a shorter distance then you need a smaller acreage to play 18-holes. If you have a smaller acreage you need less overall maintenance, and less course costs occur, and very, very importantly the way the world is going, less water usage.
I'll say it again...less water usage.

I think the amounts less ground to be watered are over-estimated.

Most courses don't water vast amounts of rough between the fairways and the tees. So what does it matter if from the back tees it is 150 yard to the fairway or 210 yards? The fairways, greens, and tees are still going to be about the same size and, thus, require about the same amount of water.

Maintenance, yes, once a week or so they'll have to mow that extra 60 yards. If it's rough.

It's not zero extra dollars, but it's not a 10% increase if the course yardage is increased 10%, either.

It matters to someone who is thirsty and can't find water to drink.
It matters to the farmer down the road who wants to use the water to grow crops. And when folks can't buy food (crops) and are hungry they might not be exactly chuffed with water being used on any golf course let alone a 'longer' one.
atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It matters to someone who is thirsty and can't find water to drink.
It matters to the farmer down the road who wants to use the water to grow crops. And when folks can't buy food (crops) and are hungry they might not be exactly chuffed with water being used on any golf course let alone a 'longer' one.

My point is that a longer golf course doesn't necessarily use much more water at all, but people act like 10% longer = 10% more water and maintenance.
You said nothing to counter that, or shed any light on the issue. Why have a golf course at all if someone is "thirsty." 

[Thomas Dai]

Precisely.
Atb

[Tom Bacsanyi]

If the equipment used means the ball goes a shorter distance then you need a smaller acreage to play 18-holes. If you have a smaller acreage you need less overall maintenance, and less course costs occur, and very, very importantly the way the world is going, less water usage.
I'll say it again...less water usage.

I think the amounts less ground to be watered are over-estimated.

Most courses don't water vast amounts of rough between the fairways and the tees. So what does it matter if from the back tees it is 150 yard to the fairway or 210 yards? The fairways, greens, and tees are still going to be about the same size and, thus, require about the same amount of water.

Maintenance, yes, once a week or so they'll have to mow that extra 60 yards. If it's rough.

It's not zero extra dollars, but it's not a 10% increase if the course yardage is increased 10%, either.

Hate to break this to you but if there is green grass at rough height between the tees and fairways then it is likely irrigated, fertilized, mowed, possibly sprayed, and spot treated for weeds.  And in spring and during rainy periods once around with the rough mower is going to be inadequate.  You will have a lost ball hazard, and the next mow you will have to deal with excessive clippings.  Other than that it requires little maintenance. 

[DFarron]

So I want to jump here on a more "spiritual" level lol. Lately have been playing with two set of blades, some old MP-69's from Mizuno and the new Callaway Apex blades. From a "scientific" view point I know that a perimeter weighted club should be better, but I have never enjoyed my rounds more with blade irons!


I like the look better, am able to shape my shots and I really don't think it has affected my scoring in a negative manner. Can't bring myself to go with a wood driver (I'm old enough to remember what that was like!) but I have switched to the Ping G 400 which has a smaller head. I like the clean look and it performs better than any driver that I've had in the last 3 years.


I'm working on my game to hopefully return to competitive golf next year so I have to decide which way to go, may just give the blades a whirl next season!

[Peter Pallotta]

Drew -
I alternate playing with two sets: mostly I play with the Hogan woods, Hagen irons, Wilson Dyna-power SW, and a Bullseye putter; but sometimes I play with a modern set (which keeps changing as I find things in second hand stores, but is currently) Aeroburner Mini driver, Adams Speedline-10 3 wood, Ping G2 5 wood, R7 irons, Cleveland wedges, and an Odyssey putter.
You're a top-flight golfer and I'm a very average one, and yet sometimes I know exactly what you mean, i.e. not only is the old equipment far more lovely to look at and satisfying to play, but I actually don't see any difference at all in my average/typical score for 18 holes.
But sometimes, as in my most recent round, in the cold and wet, using the new equipment literally feels like cheating!
I mean, compared to the older clubs, I simply can't 'mis-hit' these new clubs; barely adequate swings (off the driver or irons) still get the ball out there and fairly straight, and with really good swings I can even reach some par 5s in two!
The fairway woods in particular: my goodness, compared to the heavy steel shafted wood woods, the graphite shafts and hot faces of the Ping or Adams makes me feel (almost) like a scratch golfer, instead of a 12 or 15.
All of which is to say: ah, the price we have to pay for beauty and soul -- it can be steep indeed! But without them, at least every so often, what do you have? Nothing but a pastime.... 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Hate to break this to you but if there is green grass at rough height between the tees and fairways then it is likely irrigated, fertilized, mowed, possibly sprayed, and spot treated for weeds.

The courses here don't irrigate that rough. And the fact remains that the bulk of the maintenance budget is spent on the greens, tees, and fairways, which don't really change when a course is lengthened.

----------

To the original topic, I don't find playing the game now any less fun than I did in the early 90s with balata, persimmon, blades, spikes, etc.

[Josh Stevens]

Do modern woods still use gear effect?

I have recently added my old Hogan persimmon 4 wood back into my bag.  ITs face is so curved, I can use it to manufacture shots I cant do with my hybrid. I can toe it and hit a nice high draw into a tight pin. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do modern woods still use gear effect?

Yes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()