News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.



Mike Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
290 in the air is legit. Obviously he hit a ProV, but modern fitness is just a different level than the old days. Then there is conditioning for the roll.


It actually makes Tiger at the PGA look MORE amazing. He is average long these days, but he knows how to compete.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us."

Dr. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

James Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think it makes Jack look even more awesome.  He routinely hit it 270 carry with a 1960s era ball and hit fairways. 

Ryan Hillenbrand

  • Karma: +0/-0
Maybe the old equipment wasn’t as bad as we thought and the club makers are just gaming us.


So I didn’t need this new Twist Face driver?!!

Peter Pallotta

I'm not quite convinced that improved 'fitness' is as much of a factor in golf as it is other sports; 'less fit' golfers of the past still managed -- given the dynamics of the golf swing -- to generate a heck of a lot of club head speed. In the mid 80s, with persimmon, Davis Love was averaging about 285 yards. Greg Norman was right there (on average) and I can remember how much longer and still straight he could be when needed, with golf balls that were definitely not ProV1s. But, more tellingly: while Dustin's drive of 290 in the air and 318 total is very impressive for sure, look at his 1 iron carry distance, ie about 235. Now, how far did Jack hit that same 1 iron at the 1967 US Open at Baltustrol? Ah, that would be 238 yards. Uphill. Into the wind. To 22 feet. Using not a ProV1 but a MacGregor Tourney.     
Which is to say, great golfers of the past have always been able to generate all the club head speed they needed to.   
Anyway...
What's fun for me to imagine is today's golfers using that equipment. Judging from the results he got here, if there was a 550 yard Par 5, Dustin would have to play it Driver-1 iron to get there in two. Ah, now that's cool....     

« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 10:56:57 PM by Peter Pallotta »

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
If anyone wants to start the “roll back the ball” chant I’m in.
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm not quite convinced that improved 'fitness' is as much of a factor in golf as it is other sports; 'less fit' golfers of the past still managed -- given the dynamics of the golf swing -- to generate a heck of a lot of club head speed. In the mid 80s, with persimmon, Davis Love was averaging about 285 yards. Greg Norman was right there (on average) and I can remember how much longer and still straight he could be when needed, with golf balls that were definitely not ProV1s. But, more tellingly: while Dustin's drive of 290 in the air and 318 total is very impressive for sure, look at his 1 iron carry distance, ie about 235. Now, how far did Jack hit that same 1 iron at the 1967 US Open at Baltustrol? Ah, that would be 238 yards. Uphill. Into the wind. To 22 feet. Using not a ProV1 but a MacGregor Tourney.     
Which is to say, great golfers of the past have always been able to generate all the club head speed they needed to.   
Anyway...
What's fun for me to imagine is today's golfers using that equipment. Judging from the results he got here, if there was a 550 yard Par 5, Dustin would have to play it Driver-1 iron to get there in two. Ah, now that's cool....   


I'm seem to remember reading for the working out the top players do that their swing speed changes very little, which tells me that working out does not help you hit the ball further. I suspect it helps you out of the rough. And, I suspect it keeps you more stable during the swing leading to fewer miss hits. Of course, this is just a theory on my part.

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm not quite convinced that improved 'fitness' is as much of a factor in golf as it is other sports; 'less fit' golfers of the past still managed -- given the dynamics of the golf swing -- to generate a heck of a lot of club head speed. In the mid 80s, with persimmon, Davis Love was averaging about 285 yards. Greg Norman was right there (on average) and I can remember how much longer and still straight he could be when needed, with golf balls that were definitely not ProV1s. But, more tellingly: while Dustin's drive of 290 in the air and 318 total is very impressive for sure, look at his 1 iron carry distance, ie about 235. Now, how far did Jack hit that same 1 iron at the 1967 US Open at Baltustrol? Ah, that would be 238 yards. Uphill. Into the wind. To 22 feet. Using not a ProV1 but a MacGregor Tourney.     
Which is to say, great golfers of the past have always been able to generate all the club head speed they needed to.   
Anyway...
What's fun for me to imagine is today's golfers using that equipment. Judging from the results he got here, if there was a 550 yard Par 5, Dustin would have to play it Driver-1 iron to get there in two. Ah, now that's cool....   


Agree with all this. Several players in my club were hitting those distances with Persimmon Drivers in the 80s. Of course, those were the best hits for them. These days we see much longer drives.

The discussion of what causes the longer distance is irrelevant. So what if it were the fitter athletes? Changing thousands of venues to fit new distances is plain stupid. Again, look at what happened to the Javelin in 1984! More reasonable officials and less money in javelin sales, I guess.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
While I think this is interesting, its only one data point.


I think it'd be fascinating for a silly season event to get 16 of the top players and do a 2 day tournament at a classic old venue with old clubs, balls, and clothes.  Let em have at it for a few days and see what they can do over 36 holes.  Dangle some decent prize money to boot so they'll give it thier best go and all.


P.S.  As it concerns old clubs, until players start using them again, we all know which equipment is better...

Bill Raffo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Not sure of the economic viability but sure would be nice if Titleist, or someone else, would manufacture a big batch of an exact replica of the old balata ball.  Between, comparisons like this and for those of us who like to, or would like to, have a go with the old equipment and re-live that lost feeling of trying to work iron shots at flags, it seems they would sell them out, at least eventually.




Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
While I think this is interesting, its only one data point.
I think it'd be fascinating for a silly season event to get 16 of the top players and do a 2 day tournament at a classic old venue with old clubs, balls, and clothes.  Let em have at it for a few days and see what they can do over 36 holes.  Dangle some decent prize money to boot so they'll give it thier best go and all.
P.S.  As it concerns old clubs, until players start using them again, we all know which equipment is better...


There’s the Tiger and Phil match apparently for $9m coming up. I very much doubt I’ll watch it assuming I’ll even have TV access.
But.....
.....make it 3 rounds, one as is now, one using equipment from say the 1980’s and one using equipment from the 1920’s and I’d very much be interested in watching it, even more so if it were played on a course that’s been in use for at least the same time period. Maybe have 8 players involved including ladies.
Atb

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
290 in the air is legit. Obviously he hit a ProV, but modern fitness is just a different level than the old days. Then there is conditioning for the roll.




"Fitness" is not why DJ can hit  a persimmon 290 in the air.
Athleticism resulting in clubhead speed is.(and a modern ball)


There are millions of "fit" people who can run for miles and can't carry a ball 200 yards.
There are quite a few "out of shape" athletes who can carry a ball Tour distances, yet not run a half mile.


DJ is 6 -4 and athletic
Jack was 5 -11 (and athletic)


DJ was not hitting a high spin balata ball.


Jack broke an average of three inserts a year in his early years-with a mushy balata ball.


They both would be long in comparison to others with past and present equipment
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,


I think the real question which we can't answer is.  Take a Jack in his prime, in his 30s and give him 2018 equipment, how far could he hit it? I'm guessing he'd easily be in the top 25 with the other long bombers currently on tour.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,


I think the real question which we can't answer is.  Take a Jack in his prime, in his 30s and give him 2018 equipment, how far could he hit it? I'm guessing he'd easily be in the top 25 with the other long bombers currently on tour.


Jack in 1963? Top 2 or 3 on today's tour with equipment. He absolutely killed it and lost a bit of potential distance with a fade that players don't lose today fading with the spitballs and low spin equipment of today
Jack in the 1970's and early 80's -Top 25 easily
He beat people with his length, accuracy and mind once he lost a bit of length from age and lesser technique (late 70's)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mike Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0

"Fitness" is not why DJ can hit  a persimmon 290 in the air.
Athleticism resulting in clubhead speed is.(and a modern ball)




I should have said "golf fitness". I have no doubt that Jack was a superior athlete overall to DJ. I am sure he was a better putter than DJ, which of course is 30+% of the game, maybe more in Majors.


My suggestion was that all world class athletes today have access to fitness routines specific to their sport that simply did exist in the old days. Here is DJ's routine:


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/training-with-dustin-johnson


If Jack had access to this, he would have been even better. I think.



"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us."

Dr. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
In Jacks day tournament courses were greened up while today they are browned down. Modern irrigation has killed the roll we enjoyed in the persimmon age.


Jack hit the ball just far enough to win, Dustin hits it far enough to get paid. It's miles apart.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 05:42:43 PM by John Kavanaugh »

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0

I occasionally take out my old persimmon driver for a round and when I hit it out of the middle it is within ten yards of the modern driver. The difference the modern driver makes is with the mishits. With the persimmon a mishit can cost me 30 to 40 yards in distance and 10 to 20 in direction. Where as it does not matter where you hit it with the modern driver it still goes the same distance and straight.


The ball is where the distance has change but the club has reduced the need to find the sweet spot.




Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Yes, this "news" is confirming what the manufacturers want us to believe, so I take it with a grain of salt.


DJ is a great player.  But if he hit ten balls, I'll bet some of them carried less than 290.  That's the difference between today's driver and persimmon.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
1980, PGA Tour began publishing statistics (yes I remember).  Dan Pohl led the tour at 274,3 yards.  Tour average was 256 and change.  That was 38 years ago.  1997, John Daley was the first to average 300 yards per drive.  Pohl's leading distance was below the average drive on tour today.  I suspect that human evolution and improvements in technique have not improved enough in less than 40 years to account for these changes, although I concede that there are more good athletes attracted to golf and greater emphasis on training.  The unaccounted for variable is equipment.  A factor not often discussed is the synergy between the longer, more forgiving and livelier drivers and the new balls.


My concern is not for the ordinary club player.  But so long as we care about the nature of the challenge presented to professionals and top amateurs this is disturbing in its impact on architecture.  The ability to hit accurate long irons used to be a significant factor in separating the good from the great players.  Now, the only time one sees a long iron is on very tight driving holes, extremely long par 3's and extraordinarily long par 5's. Additionally, because it is harder to hit these clubs and balls "crooked", players are encouraged to "go after" their shots whereas players of the Nicklaus era and before always talked about swinging within themselves  The fact that most par 4's are now a driver and short iron lessens the need to hit the fairway.  All of these factors have obsoleted great golf courses, absent ridiculous efforts to "toughen" them which usually destroy the basic strategic concepts that make them great.  I think that it also makes the game less interesting, although I concede that is only one man's opinion. 


But the biggest impact is that it creates a de facto bifurcation in the game.  Realistically, there was always a huge difference between the pros and the rest of us.  But because the distance factor was not as great, we could play the same golf courses and the differences in our games were such that the courses worked for both groups. Thus, we could more easily identify with the challenges faced by the pros. 


From a GCA perspective, this requires significant additional land to build new courses (or alternatively building courses that make hitting driver too dangerous for the long hitter) and requires the previously mentioned modifications to classic courses when they are used for professional tourneys.  Alternatively, the course becomes irrelevant to the pros which is often a rational choice.


Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle and I suspect there is little too be done.





jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
1980, PGA Tour began publishing statistics (yes I remember).  Dan Pohl led the tour at 274,3 yards.  Tour average was 256 and change.  That was 38 years ago.  1997, John Daley was the first to average 300 yards per drive.  Pohl's leading distance was below the average drive on tour today.  I suspect that human evolution and improvements in technique have not improved enough in less than 40 years to account for these changes, although I concede that there are more good athletes attracted to golf and greater emphasis on training.  The unaccounted for variable is equipment.  A factor not often discussed is the synergy between the longer, more forgiving and livelier drivers and the new balls.


My concern is not for the ordinary club player.  But so long as we care about the nature of the challenge presented to professionals and top amateurs this is disturbing in its impact on architecture.  The ability to hit accurate long irons used to be a significant factor in separating the good from the great players.  Now, the only time one sees a long iron is on very tight driving holes, extremely long par 3's and extraordinarily long par 5's. Additionally, because it is harder to hit these clubs and balls "crooked", players are encouraged to "go after" their shots whereas players of the Nicklaus era and before always talked about swinging within themselves  The fact that most par 4's are now a driver and short iron lessens the need to hit the fairway.  All of these factors have obsoleted great golf courses, absent ridiculous efforts to "toughen" them which usually destroy the basic strategic concepts that make them great.  I think that it also makes the game less interesting, although I concede that is only one man's opinion. 


But the biggest impact is that it creates a de facto bifurcation in the game.  Realistically, there was always a huge difference between the pros and the rest of us.  But because the distance factor was not as great, we could play the same golf courses and the differences in our games were such that the courses worked for both groups. Thus, we could more easily identify with the challenges faced by the pros. 


From a GCA perspective, this requires significant additional land to build new courses (or alternatively building courses that make hitting driver too dangerous for the long hitter) and requires the previously mentioned modifications to classic courses when they are used for professional tourneys.  Alternatively, the course becomes irrelevant to the pros which is often a rational choice.


Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle and I suspect there is little too be done.


"But the biggest impact is that it creates a de facto bifurcation in the game.  Realistically, there was always a huge difference between the pros and the rest of us.  But because the distance factor was not as great, we could play the same golf courses and the differences in our games were such that the courses worked for both groups. Thus, we could more easily identify with the challenges faced by the pros. "

SL
Your entire post was fantastic.

Now pros are only tested by stupid courses or setups we would never consider playing or much less enjoying.
Our loss on many fronts both as players, spectators and armchair architecture fans
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Maybe bifurcation is the way to go. 

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
The problem, as I see it, is that bifurcation as presently contemplated would be vehemently opposed by the equipment manufacturers and, ultimately the pros who are paid the endorsement dollars.  It's hard to argue that your clubs are better or your balls are longer if the pro's aren't demonstrating.   Additionally, at what point does the better amateur switch over?  Do we build separate tournament courses?  How do they sustain themselves in the weeks when there is no tourney, or if land is available, do we build courses with very distant "championship tees"?  Bifurcation sounds interesting but I suggest there are economic and political issues that make it's viability questionable.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think golf is already bifurcated because of equipment advances and more and more because of equipment regression, only we haven't fully admitted it to ourselves.  Plenty of tournament courses already exist, bifurcation would make even more courses available.  I don't think it would be very difficult at all to create an elite level of golfers who "volunteer" to use rolled back equipment, thus fully realizing bifurcation.  Any pro tour and Am events counting toward world rankings is an automatic elite group situation. In lesser events, all the way down to club level, the gross prize is played with rolled back equipment should any club or organizer wish to bother.  We already have a complicated handicap system, which in essence is a type of bifurcation.  Pros and equipment companies only have as much power as golfers who pay the bills allow.  With fitting becoming more and more the way golfers buy clubs, what the pros use becomes less meaningful.  Hell, for a huge percentage of golfers, they could care less about what pros use anyway.   

To me, bifurcation is here, why not embrace it for all its benefits?

Ciao
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 09:12:29 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bifurcation
The ruling bodies make the rules for the game.  The tours choose to play by those rules
The professional golf tours would have to choose to follow a separate set of rules that slowed the distance down.  I certainly could see the tour and the players saying no.


The amount of earnings provided by manufacturers would impact that decision.


So, I guess the ruling bodies could say we are playing our championships under whatever equipment rules they wanted, but the tour could still simply say, we are sticking with the rules everyone else plays by in our events.  Would be a heck of a power struggle






Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0

"Fitness" is not why DJ can hit  a persimmon 290 in the air.
Athleticism resulting in clubhead speed is.(and a modern ball)




I should have said "golf fitness". I have no doubt that Jack was a superior athlete overall to DJ. I am sure he was a better putter than DJ, which of course is 30+% of the game, maybe more in Majors.


My suggestion was that all world class athletes today have access to fitness routines specific to their sport that simply did exist in the old days. Here is DJ's routine:


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/training-with-dustin-johnson


If Jack had access to this, he would have been even better. I think.


With all due respect to Nicklaus’ basketball and football background, it’s a pretty big statement to say jack was a better overall athlete than a Dustin.  Can’t argue it, but watching Dustin’s explosiveness, and freakish athleticism, it’s tough to imagine jack that way,