[JESII]

I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?

[Thomas Dai]

I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?

I was thinking something similar, only it was Sandy Lyle and his Ping 1-iron.
atb

[JESII]

Yep!


I suspect the increased number of young players, the available technology used in instruction and the ability to optimize equipment becoming ubiquitous would have resulted in substantial increases as well so attacking one thing, THE BALL, might solve 15% or 20% of a 50 yard problem...in my view.


Isn't it easier to let the TV guys play what we view as an uninteresting game?


How about if we sunk our resources into figuring out how to keep the ground firm when it rains like it has this year in the Philadelphia area?

[Peter Flory]

I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?

Norman's driver clubhead speed (wtih a 43" steel shaft) was clocked at 121 MPH in the mid 80s.  I'm going to assume that was him maxing out, not his typical swing.  That is about what the leading player on tour averages today with a light weight 45"+ shaft.  However, that is their average and they peak closer to 130 when they want to. 


With that type of potential max clubhead speed, Norman was averaging around 270 total yards and he got about a 13 yard spread over the tour average. 


Based on his ball flight, it seems as though he was losing a lot of distance due to high spin/ drag.  I'm sure he was losing more because of the lack of trampoline effect and the ball turning to mush on him.  In his peak form, he probably would be near tour leading with today's equipment, so he'd be getting about 40 more yards with the same ability- about a 15% increase.  That makes a 7,000 yard course in 1985 equal to an 8,000 yard course today.  Since courses haven't kept up with inflation, the game has probably gotten easier from a pure length standpoint. 


The spread between the longest drivers now and the tour average has increased.  The diminishing returns that players used to get have lessened. 


It was interesting to come across an account of Lido as being considered a "he-man's" course due to its length.  Also interesting are accounts from the early 1900s about how distance was making courses obsolete.  So, this battle to save the classic courses is nothing new. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Eric


The 'a lot of golfers like to play the same game as the pros' argument may be true in America. I don't know
But - when the Open Championship went to the 1.68 ball in 1974 and the European and Australian Tours adopted the same ball in the late 1970s the vast majority of amateurs in Britain and Australia continued to play with the 1.62 ball for another 4-5 years until it was banned. By vast majority, I'd guess 99% plus.
My assumption is if the same circumstance had played out in America very few would have been in any sort of rush to switch just because it was what the pros were playing.


And when the big ball came in I never heard of a single player who gave up because he or she had lost yardage - for the better players usually up to 20-25 yards of it.

[Jerry Kluger]

I heard Tom Watson on the radio and he said his clubhead speed now is about 15 MPH slower than in his prime yet he is hitting the ball the same distance.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The point on the grooves is that there were plenty of brand new u grooves out there when the rule changed.  In fact virtually every club sold at the time had U grooves,  Years on there are still plenty of golfers (the ones you mention who like to play the same game as the pros) still using u groove clubs.  The world didn't end because the Tour decided that the Pros would play different equipment to the rest of the golfing world nor did the change force any of the equipment manufacturers to go broke.  I know golfers who went out and stocked up on u groove wedges and who will use them right up tot he day they are banned.  The fact that Jordan and Rickie use something different isn't a concern.

"The world didn't end because…" I feel you're overstating the importance/relevance/something of the groove rule. In 2010, manufacturers weren't allowed to keep making clubs which didn't conform, and most stopped in mid-2009. The rule really only affected wedges, which are frequently replaced and which wear down quickly. The regulation change was "staggered" (out as far as 2024) mostly because the USGA/R&A didn't want people to have to be angry about having to buy new clubs just to conform, but they knew full well that a three-year old 2008 wedge in 2011 was not getting performance above and beyond what a legal PGA Tour wedge made in 2011 was getting. So no, we weren't really - in actual practice - playing under two different sets of rules. (BTW, many iron sets already had conforming grooves, even in 2006, or 2007… again, the groove rules were mostly regarding wedges).

If you want to claim victory on a technicality, go ahead. It's yours. But in practice, players were playing equipment that got the same performance (or slightly worse, to go along with their worse games) simply by the nature of grooves on wedges only really being great for a month or two anyway. Pat Burke, thanks too for the added post on this.

Once again, we're only talking about having a separate set of rules for the PGA TOUR, not top level AMs or otherwise, (which I agree Ams do play in a much more diverse set of tournaments). College golf, state AMs, regional championships, local club matches, would all remain unchanged.

So you want to punish the top level ams, many of whom attempt to and/or do qualify to play in PGA Tour events, U.S. Opens, British Opens, etc. and/or are looking to make the transition to the pro ranks at some point? And what about the European Tour? Australasian Tour? Hooters Tour? Where do you draw the line?

How about… no line? I like that the best.

So I will ask again, what do we all lose if the PGA Tour has a different set of rules, that are 99% the same with a few tweaks for equipment?

I've answered this question a bunch of times. Many people seem to constantly downplay the appeal that playing under the same rules/gear has to a lot of golfers. It's a very important part of the charm, the allure, the draw… a thing that many really enjoy about the game.

Eric

Yes Mice? Suffice to say, to your post, we're not living in the 70s anymore, and what we can learn about a relatively small population of golfers (compared to today, worldwide) did or didn't like 40+ years ago is of limited relevance, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong; wouldn't be the first time (today). But I don't think it's relevant.

[jeffwarne]

Eric


The 'a lot of golfers like to play the same game as the pros' argument may be true in America. I don't know
But - when the Open Championship went to the 1.68 ball in 1974 and the European and Australian Tours adopted the same ball in the late 1970s the vast majority of amateurs in Britain and Australia continued to play with the 1.62 ball for another 4-5 years until it was banned. By vast majority, I'd guess 99% plus.
My assumption is if the same circumstance had played out in America very few would have been in any sort of rush to switch just because it was what the pros were playing.


And when the big ball came in I never heard of a single player who gave up because he or she had lost yardage - for the better players usually up to 20-25 yards of it.

Plus 1.


The manufacturers are great at snowballing the public though.
And scaring the desperate experts into toeing their line.

[Edward Glidewell]

I honestly don't know a single golfer who cares about what happens on the PGA Tour regarding rules and equipment. In other words, I don't know anyone who would quit playing golf because they were no longer using the same equipment that the professionals are using. I honestly think the vast majority of them wouldn't even realize the rules were different -- and this is a combination of rich country club guys and people that play at random publics/munis.

Are there people out there for whom this would be a big deal and who would potentially quit the game over it? I'm sure there are. But I think it's a very small percentage of golfers. I'd venture a guess that the majority of golfers don't even watch or care about professional golf, and a lot of THOSE are only interested in the majors and maybe a couple of other big events like the Ryder Cup.

[jeffwarne]

Why on earth would anyone quit because someone else's equipnent was negatively modified ?


As already stated few noticed the groove rule, and nobody quit over it-but ironically it severely (indirectly)hurt 5my short game as I had been using Ping eye 2 wedges for 27 years because of the bounce and sole.


But then a lot of kool-aid was drunk at Jonestown.....

[Jon Wiggett]

To those who say Joe Public does not care what the PGA Tour players play. If that were true then the manufacturers would not be offering them millions of $ in some cases to play their equipment and wear their clothing. Of courses it matters.


Mike,


I think you are spot on with 1.62 to 1.68 ruling. The small ball was no longer allowed for club golf from 1983 if memory serves me but we still occasionally got a batch even in 1985 to use on windy, none comp days. Do not forget that the US never had this transition.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In other words, I don't know anyone who would quit playing golf because they were no longer using the same equipment that the professionals are using.

Straw man; I've never said people care enough to quit the game. I've simply said that for a lot of the people I know, part of the charm and appeal of golf is playing the same game.

Good (different) point by Jon Wiggett, too.

[jeffwarne]

In other words, I don't know anyone who would quit playing golf because they were no longer using the same equipment that the professionals are using.

Straw man; I've never said people care enough to quit the game. I've simply said that for a lot of the people I know, part of the charm and appeal of golf is playing the same game.

Good (different) point by Jon Wiggett, too.

All good points-I would argue however that 40 years ago the club champ and a touring professional were a LOT closer(or at least they thought so ) to playing the same game (they could at least play the same tees even if they were miles apart in skill)
Not too many club champs hitting 248 yard 4 irons.
In fact, when I played my last Club Championship as a college kid, two tour rookies from my hometown(one of whom would go on to win The Masters) were averaging 245 yards per drive on Tour.
Now there's a 5 foot 5 guy from my high school team averaging more than 50 yards further per drive than those 1982 Tour rookies on the PGA Tour Champions Tour the last 3 years.
Athleticism no doubt.....

[Rich Goodale]

I would be curious what Ian Woosnam's numbers would have looked like at his peak in the late 80's early 90's. How about Norman at the same time?

I was thinking something similar, only it was Sandy Lyle and his Ping 1-iron.
atb

Dai


I shot 70 at TPC Sawgrass 30 years ago by Pinging my 1-iron down the middle all day.  Some bastard stole it from my bag a few weeks later and my game went to hell from there......


Rich


PS--great thread, miles more interesting then the "I played or want to play A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H etc." posts which infest this site.  Fix it Ran, please.....

[Kalen Braley]

Erik you said:


"So you want to punish the top level ams, many of whom attempt to and/or do qualify to play in PGA Tour events, U.S. Opens, British Opens, etc. and/or are looking to make the transition to the pro ranks at some point? And what about the European Tour? Australasian Tour? Hooters Tour? Where do you draw the line?"

To my knowledge the US Open and British Open are not governed by the PGA or Euro tour respectively

But requiring top level AMs to adjust is a fact of life in every sport.  They use different bats and balls in MLB. They use a different ball, shot clock, and 3 point line in the NBA. Same for NFL, different ball....and I can go on and on with various other differences in other sports.  No one freaks out or doesn't try to go pro because of this, they adjust and move on...or they don't.

P.S.  Lets get real about why there is so much resistance to this idea, its because the equipment manufacturers will throw a shit fit tantrum because they too will have to adjust...that's all this is.

[Edward Glidewell]

To those who say Joe Public does not care what the PGA Tour players play. If that were true then the manufacturers would not be offering them millions of $ in some cases to play their equipment and wear there clothing. Of courses it matters.

There's a difference between caring about the manufacturer and caring about the actual specific club, though. I think a lot of people knew Tiger played Nike and bought Nike clubs because of it, but I don't think very many of them could have told you the specific models... and even if they could, it's not like they were actually playing the same clubs he was playing anyways since the professionals don't use off the rack models.


Erik,


I didn't mean that you were saying people would actually quit. But my point encompassed the charm and appeal aspect too -- in my experience, most golfers barely pay attention to the professional tour and would only vaguely be aware of the changes. I still maintain that it's a very small percentage of golfers that would care about a rule change for the professionals.

[Philip Hensley]

What was interesting was as Lucas struggled with the wood

An interesting discussion that was part of the State of the Game podcast referring to this, was how players learned to swing based on what era their equipment was in. I think it was Mike that said a Bobby Jones would swing different if he had grown up in the 460cc/graphite era. Lucas would swing differently if he had grown up in the hickory shaft era.


I'm amazed at the guys that bridge generations of equipment "advances". The guys that grew up playing persimmon and balata and then at the beginning of their pro careers everyone is switching to big (relatively) headed drivers and proV1's.


There's a great Shell's Wonderful World of Golf from the mid-90s where Jack and Arnie played each other at Pinehurst. One if still playing a persimmon driver, the other a metal head.

[David_Tepper]

"There's a difference between caring about the manufacturer and caring about the actual specific club, though."

Edward G. -

You are absolutely right about that. Golf companies (and other companies as well) hiring golf pros to endorse their equipment is much more about creating/establishing "brand identity" than promoting specific lines or types of golf clubs. 

My guess is the vast majority of amateur golfers do not use the clubs most of the pros use, especially when it comes to their irons.


DT

[Jon Wiggett]

To those who say Joe Public does not care what the PGA Tour players play. If that were true then the manufacturers would not be offering them millions of $ in some cases to play their equipment and wear there clothing. Of courses it matters.

There's a difference between caring about the manufacturer and caring about the actual specific club, though. I think a lot of people knew Tiger played Nike and bought Nike clubs because of it, but I don't think very many of them could have told you the specific models... and even if they could, it's not like they were actually playing the same clubs he was playing anyways since the professionals don't use off the rack models.

"There's a difference between caring about the manufacturer and caring about the actual specific club, though."

Edward G. -

You are absolutely right about that. Golf companies (and other companies as well) hiring golf pros to endorse their equipment is much more about creating/establishing "brand identity" than promoting specific lines or types of golf clubs. 

My guess is the vast majority of amateur golfers do not use the clubs most of the pros use, especially when it comes to their irons.


DT

David,


of course the majority of players do not use the same model of club but that is not the point.


Edward,


sorry but you are wrong. The clubs that the pros play are freely available as is the customisation of said clubs for any player wishing to play them. Most top amateur players will be playing a model that is being played on the professional tours. In fact it would be interesting to see if you can name a player and their clubs which are not available to the public to purchase in order to back up your point of view!!


As for the ball, you are so far wide of the mark it is difficult to believe you would think it but please do let me know what player is playing which ball that is not available to the public.


Jon

[David_Tepper]

"of course the majority of players do not use the same model of club but that is not the point."
Jon -
What is the point?
DT

[Steve Kline]

Erik you said:


"So you want to punish the top level ams, many of whom attempt to and/or do qualify to play in PGA Tour events, U.S. Opens, British Opens, etc. and/or are looking to make the transition to the pro ranks at some point? And what about the European Tour? Australasian Tour? Hooters Tour? Where do you draw the line?"

To my knowledge the US Open and British Open are not governed by the PGA or Euro tour respectively

But requiring top level AMs to adjust is a fact of life in every sport.  They use different bats and balls in MLB. They use a different ball, shot clock, and 3 point line in the NBA. Same for NFL, different ball....and I can go on and on with various other differences in other sports.  No one freaks out or doesn't try to go pro because of this, they adjust and move on...or they don't.

P.S.  Lets get real about why there is so much resistance to this idea, its because the equipment manufacturers will throw a shit fit tantrum because they too will have to adjust...that's all this is.

The one difference in golf would be that I have played in events in the same season, even the same month, that would require me to change equipment in your scenario. That's not true in all those sports you mentioned. You play a whole season with the same equipment and then get an adjustment period.


However, it seems to me that the only people this really makes a difference for are high level amateurs that no longer have plans to play professionally. That's a pretty small group of people. Although it seems to have grown.

[Thomas Dai]

Might benefit a few of the younger folk who have never played with one let alone played with one for any length of time to get themselves a steel shafted persimmon or laminate driver from the 1960's-1990's era and try to play a few rounds with it. By all means use it with a modern generation ball. You'll soon find out a few truths about distance, accuracy, trajectory, carry, roll and forgiveness plus your own ability too. Go on, I dare you!
atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

All good points-I would argue however that 40 years ago the club champ and a touring professional were a LOT closer(or at least they thought so ) to playing the same game (they could at least play the same tees even if they were miles apart in skill)
Not too many club champs hitting 248 yard 4 irons.
…
Athleticism no doubt.....

What else is different? The Tour player can hit the same ball and same club 248 yards, so what separates him from the club champ? Athleticism. Speed. Tour players are further from the average club player because there are a lot more people playing golf now, and to be a Tour player, you have to be in a much smaller "top percentage" or you're not a Tour player. In the 1970s, to make up a number, the top 125 out of 10,000 good golfers were Tour players. Now it's the top 125 out of 10,000,000 good golfers. And #10,000 on that list is still pretty darn good.

To my knowledge the US Open and British Open are not governed by the PGA or Euro tour respectively

There's no incentive at all for JUST the PGA Tour to add such a rule. So any talk of bifurcation I assume, stupidly or not, to be set out as the Rules by the USGA/R&A.

But requiring top level AMs to adjust is a fact of life in every sport.

Not for one week (the U.S. Open, or the U.S. Amateur). They transition to the minor leagues. In golf they'd have to choose between being at a disadvantage most of the time, just so they can prepare for the times they move up a level and play in a U.S. Open Qualifier or something, or have to deal with a disruption/change for one week or two rounds or whatever. It's not like other sports. And this would be true regardless of where you put the line. Golfers straddle the line more in golf than any other sport. A random good basketball player doesn't just get to play a few games in the NBA finals by qualifying to do so.

P.S.  Lets get real about why there is so much resistance to this idea, its because the equipment manufacturers will throw a shit fit tantrum because they too will have to adjust...that's all this is.

That's not my objection at all, and I have no ties at all to a manufacturer.

in my experience, most golfers barely pay attention to the professional tour and would only vaguely be aware of the changes. I still maintain that it's a very small percentage of golfers that would care about a rule change for the professionals.

I do not share your experiences.

[Jerry Kluger]

I know I made this comment earlier but I never responded to Tom:  How many courses that the PGA Tour plays are owned by the PGA Tour - perhaps a few - most of the TPC courses are a licensing arrangement and the others have no association with the Tour so if the courses become relatively shorter due to equipment the Tour has no skin in the game unlike baseball.  As far as the ball goes sitting behind third base and a major league baseball player pulls a 95 MPH fastball into the stands that is far more dangerous than a golf ball where the ball is descending and a spectator gets hit.  You put an aluminum bat in the hands of a major leaguer and lookout - people would be seriously hurt almost every game. I would speculate that a baseball can do a lot more damage than a baseball. So my point is that the PGA Tour unlike baseball has no incentive to dial back the ball or the clubs.  The only hope is if the Masters decides that it is time for a competition ball.

[Edward Glidewell]

Edward,


sorry but you are wrong. The clubs that the pros play are freely available as is the customisation of said clubs for any player wishing to play them. Most top amateur players will be playing a model that is being played on the professional tours. In fact it would be interesting to see if you can name a player and their clubs which are not available to the public to purchase in order to back up your point of view!!


As for the ball, you are so far wide of the mark it is difficult to believe you would think it but please do let me know what player is playing which ball that is not available to the public.


Jon

I didn't say anything at all about the golf ball; I was only talking about the clubs. I also didn't say they weren't available for sale. However, my understanding (and this could be wrong) is that some of the top players are only nominally playing the same irons you can buy at a store. They're customized to an extent beyond what is possible through a standard club fitting. They also sometimes play with prototypes that aren't yet available to the public at all.


David is right though. None of that even matters to the original point. It's not about the specific model; it's about the manufacturer brand name.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()