[Erik J. Barzeski]

The "least a little bit ridiculous" is your brainwashing by the equipment companies.

Brainwashing? I hear it from players I'm coaching every week. Less so now that hybrids and bigger drivers are common, a bit more so six, seven years ago.

Doesn't matter what the size of the driver is, you still get to set the ball on the tee and get it airborne.

A bigger driver makes that easier for the lower skilled players (and even the higher skilled players - it's commonly cited as a reason why players go after the ball so hard now).

Modern equipment makes the game more fun. My daughter wouldn't have taken to golf if she couldn't have gotten the ball airborne and moving forward quite so easily. She wouldn't have enjoyed swinging heavy, small, long clubs that were available back then. That's an entirely different market you're seemingly not considering: juniors, women, etc. The equipment advances have made the game more enjoyable for them.

I get it. If you can't do, you teach. You dwell on experience, not competition. Get the ball in the air. Nicer benches. Need a "big time" feel.IMO golf needs more competitors and fewer experiencers.You need to sell clubs less, and golf more.

More assumptions, and now you're just being a jerk. I don't sell clubs. I teach. And I'm about a +1 when I do find the time to play, which isn't often as when I'm not teaching I'm often driving my kiddo around to play in some events, or helping her out.

In one topic you're complaining about only being able to cater to 95% of the market, and in this topic you're saying "golf needs more competitors and fewer experiencers." Experiencers pay greens fees too, and nobody starts playing at an immediate competitive level.

---

None of this stuff, Garland, seems to me to be on topic, so I beg the forgiveness of the forum for this post, and am done with this side-topic stuff in this discussion.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik, you dolt. Hackers love to compete. They could care less whether or not they experience getting a 2 iron airborne if they beat their buddies.

And, I looked at your blog. I call that selling clubs. Admittedly a quick look, but I didn't see anything suggesting people buy a cheap inexpensive set and head to the cheap par 3, or 9 holer and give it a try. I didn't see anything suggesting match play against a buddy over the solitary performance anxiety inducing medal play.

[BHoover]

Erik, you dolt. Hackers love to compete. They could care less whether or not they experience getting a 2 iron airborne if they beat their buddies.

With what I’ve heard about your shotmaking skills and putting acumen, you don’t need to get the ball airborne.

[jeffwarne]

Erik brings up a very good point.
Equipment has really helped junior golfers and women a lot by getting around the weight issue.
Years ago so many kids(me with my fathers over length clubs) developed poor swings by learning with too heavy clubs making it very difficult to get the club on plane and released properly.
For years I advocated making a driver with a driver size head and 3 wood loft for women and used to make up component clubs for just that purpose with super light driver length graphite shafts and called it a driver.


There's no doubt that newer players do better with modern equipment because the wooden clubs offered so few choices in loft and weight.
That's why even though there are many factors affecting distance gains, I advocate reducing or bifurcating the ball so that the other equipment advantages can be retained (getting it in the air, lightness, loft etc.)

[Joe Hancock]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

[Kalen Braley]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

Joe,


You raise an interesting point.  I suspect in order the barriers to growing, or even maintaining the game are:


1a)  Time
1b)  Money


A distance 3rd and beyond is everything else like clubs, balls, difficulty of playing, etc.

[jeffwarne]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

Joe agreed.
I think it was more addictive then, precisely because it was hard, and we didn't knoew it was supposed to be cool,

[John Kavanaugh]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

In the old days 14 handicaps didn't have a seat at the table.

[Joe Hancock]

There’s a direct corrolation between money and pandering. Without the motivation of money, pandering becomes unneccessary.

[Joe Hancock]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

In the old days 14 handicaps didn't have a seat at the table.

Very eliteist view of the game, John.

[Kalen Braley]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

In the old days 14 handicaps didn't have a seat at the table.

John,


Only because golf equipment companies didn't understand what the actual playing abilities were of the average player, as opposed to the vanity cap players like Presidente Cheeto.


But you can bet your ass they know who they're marketing/selling to now....

[JMEvensky]

All the talk of golfers getting into the game due to “easier” equipment now is in direct conflict with the height of the popularity of the game in the 70’s and 80’s, when apparently the game wasn’t fun. Only old people know this though.

In the old days 14 handicaps didn't have a seat at the table.

Very eliteist view of the game, John.

Joe H., it is--but he ain't wrong.

[John Kavanaugh]

Simply enough it is the 14 handicap that wanted the game easier for them while remaining difficult for the expert that got us in this mess. Better equipment and longer courses...thank you very much.

[Tom_Doak]

Just got my annual Evans Scholars magazine in the mail from the WGA, and stumbled upon an interesting quote for this discussion:


"The game has changed a lot, especially in the last five years.  Part of that is due to the equipment.  There are guys playing on the Tour who have never hit a Persimmon driver.  They've never hit a Balata golf ball.  The athletic ability of players on the PGA Tour now is higher than it's ever been, and the game has changed.  It's very hard to compete against guys that can carry a ball 320 yards whenever they want to, and it takes a special kind of player to combat that."


That's from Justin Leonard, explaining why he retired from the Tour.


Of course, he's too old and too short off the tee to compete any more.  Somebody will say it's just evolution that a player like that has to quit.  But read those first two sentences again, closely, because he's saying that about the era in which supposedly nothing has changed equipment wise, and I'm betting he has a better sense of it than Erik and John K.

[John Kavanaugh]

At the 97 Masters Leonard was still playing Persimmon. I have always admired him for that.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Of course, he's too old and too short off the tee to compete any more.  Somebody will say it's just evolution that a player like that has to quit.  But read those first two sentences again, closely, because he's saying that about the era in which supposedly nothing has changed equipment wise, and I'm betting he has a better sense of it than Erik and John K.

I don't doubt that he does… and as I said elsewhere I'd root for Corey Pavin, too, sometimes. But I still don't care that much about a tiny percentage of golfers or think that what they do should set the rules and game for everyone who plays the game.


The short hitter has always been at a disadvantage. Speed/distance are advantages.

[JESII]

Tom,


Justin was always a short, accurate, strategic, control player with a killer instinct. Technology didn't take him out of the game...course set up designed to support the bomb and gauger did!


Notice how a drive can launch at 13 degrees and still roll 50 yards on a rock hard fairway then the approach splashes to a stop in feet...


Yes, regardless, these guys hit the ball astronomical distances...why not jsut forget about them?

[Grant Saunders]

Please don't read this as the USA/New Yorker with internet tough talk. It actually makes sense that Oz and New Zealand would set the example. We could move up a set of tees here in the USA and play "Australian Rules Golf" with your new ball and maybe club specs. I like niche topics, why else would I be on GCA.com !!

Mike

NZ and Australia have been setting an example for decades on how to maintain golf courses without the need for extravagance and excessive inputs.

Hows that been catching on over in your parts of the world?

[jeffwarne]

Just got my annual Evans Scholars magazine in the mail from the WGA, and stumbled upon an interesting quote for this discussion:


"The game has changed a lot, especially in the last five years.  Part of that is due to the equipment.  There are guys playing on the Tour who have never hit a Persimmon driver.  They've never hit a Balata golf ball.  The athletic ability of players on the PGA Tour now is higher than it's ever been, and the game has changed.  It's very hard to compete against guys that can carry a ball 320 yards whenever they want to, and it takes a special kind of player to combat that."


That's from Justin Leonard, explaining why he retired from the Tour.


Of course, he's too old and too short off the tee to compete any more.  Somebody will say it's just evolution that a player like that has to quit.  But read those first two sentences again, closely, because he's saying that about the era in which supposedly nothing has changed equipment wise, and I'm betting he has a better sense of it than Erik and John K.

Tom,
You nailed it.
Just because the rules haven't changed doesn't mean the equipment hasn't.
It was explained to me by a R&D guy 2-3 years ago and that the uSGA was oblivious to their advances within their naively written equipment guidelines.And that they don't let them out all at one to sell more drivers-every cycle.
Then you have those who say freeze it now-no rollback.
How? they thought they froze it years ago.


I crack up every time someone tells me how athletic these guys are -yes they are more fit and cut.
But not 50 yards more athletic-Give them a 43 inch persimmon and balata and you'll find out it's more like 10-15 yards more athletic. And Freddie got 30 extra yards by aging and couching  35 years........

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,


I find it interesting how much emphasis is placed on fitness...which contributes, but there is so much more to it.


I certainly don't have to tell you, but while length includes strength and flexibilty, it also includes technique, timing, eye to hand co-ordination, swing plane, shaft length, ball type, angle of attack, release points, etc.


P.S. Scott McCarron was one of the Tours long bombers back in the day too, when he was maybe 140 soaking wet...

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


I find it interesting how much emphasis is placed on fitness...which contributes, but there is so much more to it.


I certainly don't have to tell you, but while length includes strength and flexibilty, it also includes technique, timing, eye to hand co-ordination, swing plane, shaft length, ball type, angle of attack, release points, etc.


P.S. Scott McCarron was one of the Tours long bombers back in the day too, when he was maybe 140 soaking wet...

The second longest hitter on the Senior Tour is 5"4-went to High School with him (but he was a good athlete


Rory was skinny fat and killed it prior to his Adonis phase

[John Kavanaugh]

Just got my annual Evans Scholars magazine in the mail from the WGA, and stumbled upon an interesting quote for this discussion:


"The game has changed a lot, especially in the last five years.  Part of that is due to the equipment.  There are guys playing on the Tour who have never hit a Persimmon driver.  They've never hit a Balata golf ball.  The athletic ability of players on the PGA Tour now is higher than it's ever been, and the game has changed.  It's very hard to compete against guys that can carry a ball 320 yards whenever they want to, and it takes a special kind of player to combat that."


That's from Justin Leonard, explaining why he retired from the Tour.


Of course, he's too old and too short off the tee to compete any more.  Somebody will say it's just evolution that a player like that has to quit.  But read those first two sentences again, closely, because he's saying that about the era in which supposedly nothing has changed equipment wise, and I'm betting he has a better sense of it than Erik and John K.

Tom,
You nailed it.
Just because the rules haven't changed doesn't mean the equipment hasn't.
It was explained to me by a R&D guy 2-3 years ago and that the uSGA was oblivious to their advances within their naively written equipment guidelines.And that they don't let them out all at one to sell more drivers-every cycle.
Then you have those who say freeze it now-no rollback.
How? they thought they froze it years ago.


I crack up every time someone tells me how athletic these guys are -yes they are more fit and cut.
But not 50 yards more athletic-Give them a 43 inch persimmon and balata and you'll find out it's more like 10-15 yards more athletic. And Freddie got 30 extra yards by aging and couching  35 years........

Jeff,


I will donate $100 in your name to the charity of your choice if you promise to never mention Freddie in relation to his distance gains again.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


I will donate $100 in your name to the charity of your choice if you promise to never mention Freddie in relation to his distance gains again.

Surely denial is worth more than $100........

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


I will donate $100 in your name to the charity of your choice if you promise to never mention Freddie in relation to his distance gains again.

Surely denial is worth more than $100........

I am not denying That Freddie Couples has hit the ball further than me in my youth and every damn day henceforth. I'm just sick of hearing about it. For that reason I up my offer.


I will donate, in your name, $100 to the charity of your choice every year for the rest of my natural life. All I ask in return is that you do not mention Freddie Couples ever again in a discussion that may lead to a changing the rules of golf because of his distance acumen. This includes all shared media both currently practiced and yet to be discovered. Private conversations that I am not party to will be allowed.

[V. Kmetz]

Jeff,

I will donate $100 in your name to the charity of your choice if you promise to never mention Freddie in relation to his distance gains again.

Surely denial is worth more than $100........

Let not money = speech, in this court at least.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()