Old and new clubs/balls

[Dave McCollum]

Peter,

Over on Geoff Shackelford's site, he documents that Tiger has been advocating rolling back the ball for 10 years.

[Laz Versalles]

Well, Peter...We need to tee it up sometime. I do extremely strange (and embarrassing) things with the ball.   


So excited to see people enjoying this article. Appreciate the kind words.


I played the last two rounds of my club championship with straight persimmon this weekend. If I get better persimmons it'll be a lot more fun. The Clevelands I bought are fine, but I hit a few Hogans and Powerbilts this weekend that had me salivating.

[BCrosby]

Laz -


How did you measure the yardages for your article?


Bob

[Rick Lane]

Sometimes we have an event at my club where everyone has to show up with Persimmon, blades and balatas.    We then learn how much the current technology has made the game easier as the holes we play every day with, say Driver, 8-Iron, are now Driver, 4-Iron, etc.  Its brutally harder, and we marvel that the Golden age course designers ever made 400 yard holes at all!   I think "par" was a much harder concept in 1920?
The inverse of that is that it also seems to me now that due to technology, I can play a game with distances similar to maybe what Hogan or Sarazen had.    250 yard drives and 150 yard approaches.   They did it with old technology, we must use the new.   

[Peter Pallotta]

...The inverse of that is that it also seems to me now that due to technology, I can play a game with distances similar to maybe what Hogan or Sarazen had.    250 yard drives and 150 yard approaches.   They did it with old technology, we must use the new.

The key reason why golden age courses are more revered than ever, and the major driver of the remarkably successful renaissance in gca the last two decades. Courses of that ethos/era are the great “as ifs” of golf — giving us today the gift of feeling “as if” we were playing/ experiencing the game much like Ben Hogan and Bobby Jones did before us. It is a deeply satisfying experience.

[Tim Gavrich]

40 yards? Tim, you think these guys with modern equipment hit it only 40 yards past us recreational players?? Try 100, or even 125 yards.

Is it stupid that I, as a 60 year old fat out-of-shape recreational player, can hit the ball further than I did when I was 40? To ask the question is to answer it. And the solution is the ball.

I'm/we're not asking Titleist and Callaway and Srixon and Snell and whoever else makes golf balls to stop. Just stop making them so that they'll go so far. Is it bigger, smaller, lighter, heavier, spinnier or less spinny? I have no idea -- I'm a lawyer, not an engineer. But I guarantee you that the ball manufacturers and their engineers could design golf balls that reduce the distance and/or increase the spin (or whatever!) that will allow our current golf courses to not be overpowered by modern clubs and balls, while at the same time allowing the recreational player to enjoy the same game that the best players play.

Mark--


By how many yards should, say, Rory McIlroy - who is of roughly average height but is one of the best in the world at delivering a golf club to a ball at maximum controllable speed - be able to outdrive you? What is the maximum tolerable Tour driving distance? I've been asking that question for years in vain here, and no one ever seems to want to give an answer.


Also, why is it self-evident that you should necessarily not be hitting the ball farther at 60 than you did at 40? Your computer is much faster today than it was then; why should golf be arbitrarily exempt from technological advances?


The pros should be better - more accurate AND longer - than we are. They should play a game with which we're not familiar.

[Laz Versalles]

Laz -


How did you measure the yardages for your article?


Bob

Hi Bob, I went and hit a bunch of shots in a Flight Scope GS2 simulator.

[Peter Pallotta]

Laz - I didn’t realize you’d written the article (I jumped right in to reading and missed the byline). My compliments. I think good and interesting writing is hard to do; and good and interesting writing about golf is (apparently, judging by much of your competition) even harder. You accomplished both in a very satisfying way. Good on you.
Peter

[Ken Moum]

I loved Laz's article, but one of Shack's regulars posted a link to a blog by Phil Blackmar that totally nailed it.

https://pblackmar.wordpress.com/2017/10/17/old-become-new/

This  is  the most insightful thing I've read on the subject

"I realize I’m not going to play as well as I could with today’s equipment, but my approach is going to be to paint pictures rather than assemble nuts and bolts. I’m moving up a tee and playing at a length that fits being an artist and doesn’t require me to “max out” my speed," -- Phil Blackmar

For me, as a mediodre amateur, playing with hickory or  persimmon and blades, which I have done quite a bit of, doesn't have as much of  an effect on my good scores as I'd have thought. I does make  me  pay attention on EVERY shot, and it does give me the joy of sometimes painting pictures.

It's neither worse nor better in measurable terms.  But in a  lot of ways it is more fun.


K

[John Kavanaugh]

Any iron is easy to hit with a modern grip. Roll back the grip if you want people to play worse.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I was listening to Carl and Dennis Paulson last week who were waxing poetically about Palmetto and playing it with persimmon and balata balls. Two former Tour players hitting 4-5 irons into 400 yard par 4's that the kids there now hit flip L wedges to.

Unless there was a pretty darn strong wind, I wouldn't have hit more than about a 7-iron in as a 16-year-old playing my MacGregor VIP Tourney persimmon woods and the matching set of muscleback irons.

There's nothing fun about blading a (then-)$3 ball and having it "last" one shot.

I'm sorry none of you here seem to have fun playing golf. I do. My kid does. I have just as much fun now as I did when I first started playing with the clubs I mentioned up above. The hole is still only 4.25" in size and I'm still anywhere from 3600 to 21600 inches away from it.

Sadly, I think Tiger’s statements will prove counter-productive, much as Jack’s did/have. Because neither of them urged a roll-back in their primes, and because Tiger shrewdly benefited from/took advantage of new technology earlier and to a greater degree than any of his contemporaries, such calls for a roll back seem both hypocritical and self serving — and most damning to the cause of all, are seen by the current/best touring pros as a sure sign that Jack and Tiger are no longer “one of them”, ie that they’re no longer all about winning but have instead taken on the roles of elder statesmen (or worse, golf course architects!)

Tiger didn't benefit from advanced equipment. Game improvement clubs only served to narrow the gap between Tiger and the rest of the players. If they all had to play tiny-headed drivers, muscleback irons, a spinny ball, etc., then Tiger may well have won significantly more events than he did thus far. Jack has said it. Tiger has said it. Improvements in equipment narrowed the gap. They didn't do Tiger a service; they did his competitors a service.

Also I don't know what history you lived through, but Tiger stuck with steel, his spinny, shorter ball, etc. longer than most everyone else. Your later story about "spin rate" doesn't mean he moved to newer equipment, it means he realized he should stop hitting ballooning drives (if true).

[Pat Burke]

"That's my beef with modern equipment-bombing it is so common-there's no separation between good and great. There was separation between Jack and the tour, and Tiger and the tour."

Tiger made a similar point recently. He thinks he will be advantaged relative to the field by a rollback (though given his diminished skills he may be out of touch).

I'd guess that Vardon, Taylor and Braid were in favor of a rollback for the same reason.

Bob

in fairness, NOBODY believed Tiger would dominate and separate himself as he did, in large part due to the belief the equipment leveled the field too much, along with the depth of fields.  Basically the same things said for many generations.


There are a. lot of good reasons to be concerned for the distance related issues with the game. I am not for bifurcation, and have stated that in the all too many debates.
What is missing?  The loudest voices, as is the case for many of these debates, are waiting for someone else to make the change.  Augusta should tell the players to play a shorter ball.  Someone needs to host a persimmon tournament.  X.Y, or Z player needs to come out and do something.


Heck, put a program together, invest some money in "proper" equipment, and get out a convince golfers this is the way the game should be played.  Stop waiting for other people to invest in the problem. 


I'm always curious when we want others to force a change so we can feel better about something

[Niall C]

Niall -


I hope Tiger's comments are seen by other pros as laying down a gauntlet, in the sense that they now ought to feel obligated to express an opinion about about what the ball has done to the game. I'm not holding my breath, however. Even at a time when the pros are getting a lot less money from ball manufacturers.


An interesting historical note is that British pros initially opposed the introduction of the Haskell in 1903 (in support of John Low) and later in 1920/21 urged (again, in support of John Low) the introduction of a "floater" ball.


So there is some precedent for pros being on the side of the angels.


Bob

Bob

I don't think they necessarily opposed the Haskell as thought it was no good..............right up to the point Sandy Herd won the 1902 Open using it. As a side note WH Fowler was using it in competition before that.

In fairness Vardon was dead set against it as he reckoned it gave the duffer two chances, one with the strike and secondly with the mis-hit ! Mind you Vardon was also the guy who advocated the reintroduction of cross hazards as a response to the advent of the golden age of architecture.

Niall

[Niall C]

It strikes me that the golf equipment companies are involved in an arms race and the players are there salesmen. I can't imagine they will get many commissions on the back of advising against using their employers equipment.

I'm also against bifurcation in principle but I also don't see who's going to be in favour of it. The equipment companies will lose their showcase, the players will lose their endorsements and the TV viewers will likely just lose interest.

Niall

[Peter Flory]

At least they capped the club head volume at 460cc.  You don't hear anybody complain about that.  But if they wouldn't have and were now trying to roll it back, there would be huge resistance.  Much easier to freeze technology than to roll it back.

If anything were to be rolled back, the ball is the best candidate, since people haven't made significant investments, like they have with drivers and iron sets. 

Balls are already capped in theory, so what is the difference to Titleist or others if they scale back the limits?  They will still be able to convince everybody that their balls are somehow better through their marketing and endorsements.  And their customers will continue to hit their balls in the water and have to buy new ones. 

[Pat Burke]

Well, Peter...We need to tee it up sometime. I do extremely strange (and embarrassing) things with the ball.   


So excited to see people enjoying this article. Appreciate the kind words.


I played the last two rounds of my club championship with straight persimmon this weekend. If I get better persimmons it'll be a lot more fun. The Clevelands I bought are fine, but I hit a few Hogans and Powerbilts this weekend that had me salivating.

Enjoyed the article on GolfWrx.  The smash factor was basically the same on the persimmon and Callaway?
Slightly more yardage per MPH with the Callaway, but higher launch/slightly less spin part of that.


Cool stuff.  I have bags of great persimmon, maybe have something you'd like!!

[Bill Raffo]

Does seem like there would be some kind of market for a company to produce small batches of Balata balls.  The idea of using old, dead balls or any other ball that isn't the real McCoy,  definitely keeps me from giving it a go.

[Peter Pallotta]

You know, gents: conventional wisdom/consensus opinion, besides often being boring, is also sometimes clearly flawed, and indeed sometimes laughably so.

Re Tiger: I don’t know if Nobilo is right, and I don’t read Shack’s blog, and there’s much about technology I don’t understand, and I continue to marvel at Tiger Woods' talents (and fully expect him to win again), but:

To suggest that a young man who was destined to be a star since he was 6 years old, whose father fiercely guided and protected and promoted his every step, who openly aimed at bettering Nicklaus’ record for major wins, who won 3 US Ams, who since he was a teen had every major golf manufacturer begging to endorse him and tailor their clubs for him and to pay him boatloads of money, and who had a determination to dominate and a killer instinct like no one had ever seen before — to suggest that such a young man-golfer would play even for a second with “inferior equipment”, indeed with any equipment that didn’t absolutely *best* serve his needs at the time, is unbelievable to me; and to suggest that he would play with less than the best because of some romantic/amateur notion of going "old school” is even more unbelievable.

For all I know, the steel shaft he was using (instead of graphite) in combination with whatever club-head and driver loft and golf ball actually produced the absolutely *best/ideal* spin rate and launch angle and distance and control for his swing at that time; and later, as his swing changed and equipment evolved, he was *again* using the combination absolutely best suited for him (even if Phil M thought the opposite). And if this was the case, does anyone really think that TW or his camp would’ve *told us*, or Phil, or the golfing press all about it?  Do you really think that the TW of the year 2000 (or 1998, or 1994 for that matter) would've undercut in *any way* his own mystique and aura and self-belief, or given his opponents even a shred of useful information?

[Laz Versalles]

Enjoyed the article on GolfWrx.  The smash factor was basically the same on the persimmon and Callaway?
Slightly more yardage per MPH with the Callaway, but higher launch/slightly less spin part of that.


Cool stuff.  I have bags of great persimmon, maybe have something you'd like!!

I just bought a Wood Bros. Texan 10 on eBay today. Still in market for a nice 3 wood should you have any. I truly see this making a niche comeback soon.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

to suggest that such a young man-golfer would play even for a second with “inferior equipment”, indeed with any equipment that didn’t absolutely *best* serve his needs at the time, is unbelievable to me;

He was used to the equipment. That made it a valid choice for him to keep using the "inferior" equipment. He didn't have to spend time "learning" the new stuff. We see this from others: they use older models of Pro V1 because it's what they're used to, etc.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable possibility.

[Pat Burke]

It was funny being out there when Tiger started.  We were all pretty amazed at the way he hit it, and how far he hit his ridiculous Cobra driver.  That driver was heavy, extremely stiff, and shorter than most drivers out there.
He was messing around on the range one afternoon and Calcavecchia convinced him to hit some with his Ping Ti Tech driver, I believe with a biMatrix shaft.


It took a couple swings for Tiger to adjust to the light weight, but after a couple big hooks, he hit a couple that went significantly further than his stock driver.  It was absurd, well more than 10 yards, I'd say twenty.  He laughed and handed it back to Calc saying he'd rather hit it shorter and straighter


His equipment certainly fit him, but his goals when he started sure seemed to be about controlling the ball, not just bombing it.

[Thomas Dai]

I've done quite a bit of comparison of older vrs modern equipment and balls and at times play either modern era, 70's/80's era or hickories.
But let's move away from that area for a moment.


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.


And 'shorter golf' can still be fun, takes less time to play, costs less and uses less water.


atb

[Jason Topp]

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.

[jeffwarne]

I've done quite a bit of comparison of older vrs modern equipment and balls and at times play either modern era, 70's/80's era or hickories.
But let's move away from that area for a moment.


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.


And 'shorter golf' can still be fun, takes less time to play, costs less and uses less water.


atb

Sustainability? less time? cost?
Now you're talking crazy talk

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.