[Mike_Clayton]

Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros?  Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.

Coming from you, that's not surprising in the least.

But, yeah, you're probably right: golf is the only sport in existence that's grown, but somehow has produced worse athletes.

I deliberately didn't say "worse athletes"


I asked if they were more skilled.


Given how much easier equipment is to use I happen to think they are not more skilled. They may have more skills - over 60 of them are 15 yards longer than Norman was - (statistically) at his best but that doesn't mean they are more skilled.

[Sean_A]

Just because it's a "different" skill doesn't mean it's less skilled.

Golf course architects do things differently now than they did 100 years ago. Are you "less skilled" of an architect because you have different skills?

They aren't used to having to hit their drives in the center of a small clubface.

Oh stop. Y'all act like guys on the PGA Tour can't hit the center of the clubface. They aren't mis-hitting their small-headed 3W all the time. And they're doing that with longer and lighter shafts, both of which make it more difficult to find the center of the face.

I will let Mike Clayton argue with you on this point, since he participates here.  He loves to put persimmon clubs in the hands of young players to see what they can do. 


But Mike is not the only one who has said to me that Norman's big advantage back in his prime, and certainly Nicklaus's big advantage in his prime, was being able to consistently hit their drivers at something close to full speed, which most other players back then [even Tour players] did not do very consistently at all.


I agree with you that there are a lot more players who are really competitive today than there were 20 years ago or 50 years ago.  Padraig Harrington said as much to me this summer -- he has to go full out, because there are so many good players now he can't lay back and have a chance to win.  But some of that is because the equipment has made it easier.  I do not believe there are 80 guys on Tour who could hit Jack Nicklaus' old driver the way Jack did.

And this doesn't address the advantages Jack would have today with equipment, course conditions, medical treatment, physical trainers etc. People tend to look at past greats in a bubble of their time, but then say today's players could have easily adapted to the past times.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Chicks may dig the long ball but as a life-long viewer of televised golf I probably watched less than 20 total hours of the PGA tour since January 2000.  This, during a shut-in pandemic.


I find the psuedo-drama of -28 beating a group at -27 basically unwatchable.  We talk about how the powers that be let equipment out of control but how about snail-like slow play?   There is more action on QVC.

The entertainment value of golf is a separate issue which has as much to do with number crunching stat style culture, branding, merch etc as it does with golf.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

There’s an equipment aspect to comparing those playing in the modern era with those from 30-40 yds ago and it’s not the ball nor the Driver. It’s the lob wedge.
A fixture in elite (and not so elite) players bags these days. Unheard of a few decades ago.
Seve might not have needed/used one (“I have hands”) but the majority of the the others would have.
Atb

[Mike_Clayton]

There’s an equipment aspect to comparing those playing in the modern era with those from 30-40 yds ago and it’s not the ball nor the Driver. It’s the lob wedge.
A fixture in elite (and not so elite) players bags these days. Unheard of a few decades ago.
Seve might not have needed/used one (“I have hands”) but the majority of the the others would have.
Atb

Thomas,


I agree the 60 degree wedge has made a big difference but I was using one by 1984 and Tom Kite (the first I think) had one by 1981 at least.
A significant change was in the early 1990s when Roger Cleveland came out with his wedges - the best ever made and a significant improvement on the clubs of the 1980s.


Essentially almost every wedge made now is a copy (certainly the shape) of what he made - kind of like Scotty Cameron doing what he does to Ping putters.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

They were very different in their approach, one never (almost) won from behind, and the other set a record for runner-up finishes in majors that will never be equaled IMHO.  FWIW, he had 19 while Arnold and Phil had that many combined.  Tiger has had seven.

It's a lot easier to rack up second-place finishes when there are fewer people with a realistic chance to win. Jack played against a heck of a lot more "B" and "C" players. The modern PGA Tour is almost all "A" players.

Given how much easier equipment is to use I happen to think they are not more skilled. They may have more skills - over 60 of them are 15 yards longer than Norman was - (statistically) at his best but that doesn't mean they are more skilled.

And again, differently skilled does not mean less skilled. I happen to think they're more skilled. Y'all are acting like they're mis-hitting their 3Ws all the time.

And this doesn't address the advantages Jack would have today with equipment, course conditions, medical treatment, physical trainers etc. People tend to look at past greats in a bubble of their time, but then say today's players could have easily adapted to the past times.

Sean, it's not like the people Jack was playing against had those advantages. You can look at who a player played against under the same conditions. Jack had benefits many back then didn't, too: he worked with an instructor when most didn't (not often, but some of them never did), he could travel privately when many others were literally driving stop to stop, etc.

And the modern equipment made things tougher for players at the top. It slightly helped those a rung or two below them. Jack made a lot of money because he could hit driver and long irons like nobody else: today more people can hit them like he could. His advantage would be reduced.

[Sean_A]

They were very different in their approach, one never (almost) won from behind, and the other set a record for runner-up finishes in majors that will never be equaled IMHO.  FWIW, he had 19 while Arnold and Phil had that many combined.  Tiger has had seven.

It's a lot easier to rack up second-place finishes when there are fewer people with a realistic chance to win. Jack played against a heck of a lot more "B" and "C" players. The modern PGA Tour is almost all "A" players.

Given how much easier equipment is to use I happen to think they are not more skilled. They may have more skills - over 60 of them are 15 yards longer than Norman was - (statistically) at his best but that doesn't mean they are more skilled.

And again, differently skilled does not mean less skilled. I happen to think they're more skilled. Y'all are acting like they're mis-hitting their 3Ws all the time.

And this doesn't address the advantages Jack would have today with equipment, course conditions, medical treatment, physical trainers etc. People tend to look at past greats in a bubble of their time, but then say today's players could have easily adapted to the past times.

Sean, it's not like the people Jack was playing against had those advantages. You can look at who a player played against under the same conditions. Jack had benefits many back then didn't, too: he worked with an instructor when most didn't (not often, but some of them never did), he could travel privately when many others were literally driving stop to stop, etc.

And the modern equipment made things tougher for players at the top. It slightly helped those a rung or two below them. Jack made a lot of money because he could hit driver and long irons like nobody else: today more people can hit them like he could. His advantage would be reduced.

I think Jack would be smart enough to make good use of all the modern advantages. 😎

It's dubious to say you can only look at Jack in his time and then say modern guys would beat him. You can't have it both ways.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

Actually a pretty good thread...

Agreed!


I do not agree with Eric on this issue but he makes his points well to a hostile crowd.  Much better than the echo chamber you get on this or any other issue on social media. 

[JESII]

I think Erik is simply saying the numbers make it clear each generation produces More and Better. If Jack is the sacred cow, I'd bet Erik would agree that Jack would have been better than Hogan simply because he had to be 20 / 30 years later to achieve comparable results.




On the Rollback topic; I would absolutely love to hear from Jay Monahan on this...and in reality, without his opinion, this whole conversation really falls flat. I use Monahan as simply the voice, authority of the professional game. If you want to use Rory (as the Players Advisory Council Chairman), fine. The vast majority of concern here is how the elite players play the game and diminish the challenge. How would the Tour react if a 15% - 20% rollback through bifurcation were instituted tomorrow?


Does anyone here think the Tour would play with 20% reduced distance equipment while I was able to play with whatever I wanted?

[Steve Kline]

Enjoyed the article Matthew.


On Monday, I played in the USGA 4-Ball Qualifier. It rained a lot prior to the round and the course was already soft. So, there was absolutely no roll that day.


I'm 46 and my partner is 51. We have nearly identical games. We both typically carry our tee shots in the 250-265 yard range. My 5 iron goes 190 yards and his 180 yards (probably just a difference in loft).


We were paired with two high school seniors. Both were good players, but both were struggling to get any attention from division 1 programs. They routinely outdrove us by 30-50 yards. I think one of them flew his 2 iron past my driver.


Other than driving distance (and 2 clubs less per iron shot), our games were very similar. And, the only reason that I could find for the different distance was growing up in different eras. I grew up in an era where speed was not the single most important factor in golf. No one went all out, all the time. These two kids grew up in an era where everything, and most importantly the club and ball technology, says to go all out all the time.


These kids were not better athletes than me. In fact, I'm pretty sure they only played golf. I played every sport except American football. I played club/select soccer for years and very likely could have earner a college scholarship if I hadn't decided to focus on golf. My buddy grew up in South Africa playing rugby, cricket, etc. in addition to golf.


On the one hand, I don't care what happens at the pro level. Just eliminate the concept of a par 5 (there are basically no three shot holes for tour pros) and all the under par scores go up by 12-16 shots per tournament. The problem is there are thousands of younger players hitting the ball miles. Even in my recent club championship, which I won, I was outdriven in my last two matches by an average of 30 yards by two under 20 year old players.

There is a just a massive difference in distance based on what era you grew up in. It wouldn't be a problem if courses could easily be made longer and longer. But, that just isn't the case. Many courses that were built away from more urban areas are now in urban areas and are land locked (my club is a perfect example). Additional land is expensive. The maintenance of longer courses is cost prohibitive. Longer courses take longer to play. And, I don't remember having to be so worried about balls flying at me from others holes as I do today on older, more compact courses.

And, there's a reason many of my millenial friends have extra sets of clubs of wooden drivers and forged blades. They love playing the game with them.

Jim,


I see the problem as more than the tour as there is a new generation of golfers that have grown up approaching the game in a entirely different way. These younger players are so much longer than my generation was at there age. And, there are lots of them.


So, it seems to me a general roll back is necessary.


What are your thoughts on that?

[JESII]

I saw that post the other day Steve, and agree a full rollback would be fine. Personally, I see it effecting me not in the least. I would play whatever is available and probably beat the guys I beat now and lost to the guys I lose to now.


I also believe what Mike Clayton says often...that if the rollback started as bifurcation, the good players would switch to the new (rolled back) balls and clubs almost immediately. The nearly good players would soon after and within a couple years everyone would be playing the shorter stuff and just figure it out on their own course and within their own groups.


My point is very simple; nobody thinks the guys you played with need to be regulated. They think the Tour guys playing 500 yard holes with a drive of 320 and an 8 iron from 180 and shooting 28 under has lost the plot. Not sure I agree or disagree...but I do think the USGA deciding conforming balls, clubs etc...will now go measurable shorter will immediately alienate the TOUR and they'll go their own way and create their own rules. Why wouldn't they?


Some may say screw 'em, let them go but I think the USGA feels, as I do, that consistency across all levels of play in golf is one of it's greatest strengths.


Would a full rollback be easier than bifurcation? Not sure.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think Jack would be smart enough to make good use of all the modern advantages. 😎

It has nothing to do with being smart. Just as Tiger was "hurt" by the slight elevation of those a notch below him by modern equipment, so too would Jack have been.

It's dubious to say you can only look at Jack in his time and then say modern guys would beat him. You can't have it both ways.

It's not at all. You're not understanding the argument.

Jack said it himself, too, in 1996 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1433464237565882372):



It's simple math.

I think Erik is simply saying the numbers make it clear each generation produces More and Better. If Jack is the sacred cow, I'd bet Erik would agree that Jack would have been better than Hogan simply because he had to be 20 / 30 years later to achieve comparable results.

Yep. Even if they'd achieved similar numbers, Jack > Hogan. Jack himself agrees per the statement above.

On the Rollback topic; I would absolutely love to hear from Jay Monahan on this...and in reality, without his opinion, this whole conversation really falls flat.

Agreed there as well.

Does anyone here think the Tour would play with 20% reduced distance equipment while I was able to play with whatever I wanted?

You don't think people want to see Rory hitting it like 245? 

[Thomas Dai]

Good points above.
I’m on the rollback, or re-calibrate as I prefer to call it, side of the argument. Lots of reasons why I’m on that side of the fence which I’ve detailed before so won’t mention again here.
I wouldn’t have a problem with bifurcation though.
Indeed I’d quite like to see a range of bifurcated balls, bit like the different colour spot spec in squash.
This way older folks, the less physically able and the very young could play a ball that would actually go further whereas the balance of players, ie the rest of us, could play something more appropriate distance wise.
It wouldn’t surprise me if peer pressure, ie potential embarrassment, didn’t effect which spec/colour spot ball many amateurs chose in social/peer group golf and then there’s the opportunity for organisers to impose a condition of competition rule for well, officially organised competition play at whatever relevant level.

A lot depends on money £$ though, what doesn’t, and balls, or rather the cajones of the powers that be within the game. Unless that is something outside the game forces the powers to be to act.
Atb

[JMEvensky]

I saw that post the other day Steve, and agree a full rollback would be fine. Personally, I see it effecting me not in the least. I would play whatever is available and probably beat the guys I beat now and lost to the guys I lose to now.


I also believe what Mike Clayton says often...that if the rollback started as bifurcation, the good players would switch to the new (rolled back) balls and clubs almost immediately. The nearly good players would soon after and within a couple years everyone would be playing the shorter stuff and just figure it out on their own course and within their own groups.


My point is very simple; nobody thinks the guys you played with need to be regulated. They think the Tour guys playing 500 yard holes with a drive of 320 and an 8 iron from 180 and shooting 28 under has lost the plot. Not sure I agree or disagree...but I do think the USGA deciding conforming balls, clubs etc...will now go measurable shorter will immediately alienate the TOUR and they'll go their own way and create their own rules. Why wouldn't they?


Some may say screw 'em, let them go but I think the USGA feels, as I do, that consistency across all levels of play in golf is one of it's greatest strengths.


Would a full rollback be easier than bifurcation? Not sure.

Agree with everything here except the part about the PGAT saying screw it and going their own way.


Don't Titleist, Callaway, etc. have as much to lose from that as the USGA? Take away the promise of playing what Tour players play and the big manufacturers lose a lot of marketing excitement. No more "win on Sunday, sell on Monday".

[JESII]

I think the manufacturer's would very easily sell non-conforming clubs and people would buy them. The USGA's only leverage is their events and those of participating golf associations.


That mandate means a lot to me, probably Steve Kline, and likely 50 - 100 others on this board. But across the spectrum of my golf course, we have 30 - 50 good competitive players that this would impact, the other 400 would very easily play whatever they could.


Everybody thinks the USGA are cowards for picking around the edges of distance and playability. I think they see a bad decision resulting in their irrelevance...who wouldn't tip toe with those consequences.


Back to Jay Monahan...does he want Rory hitting it 245?

[Steve Kline]

My point is very simple; nobody thinks the guys you played with need to be regulated. They think the Tour guys playing 500 yard holes with a drive of 320 and an 8 iron from 180 and shooting 28 under has lost the plot.

I basically agree with your post.


In the part I quoted, I have actually grown less and less concerned with what Tour pros shoot as time has gone on. If you don't like -28, change the par. It could have been -12 last week by making every par 5 a par 4. Or, do some other thing to raise scores. I really don't care.


The people I played with recently were hitting driver and 9 iron on a 473 yard par 4 with absolutely zero roll. So, I'm sure they hit driver and 8 iron on 500 yard par under normal questions. (Granted that aren't shooting -28.) So, I think there is a bigger problem for the game that there is a whole generation of players that are good but never going to make any level of professional golf that now hit it this far. The members at the clubs these guys play tournaments at, don't want to see their courses beaten up by them. Or, these guys get on grounds committees and want to toughen up the course for themselves. So, they lengthen the course and make it harder. This is exactly what Maketewah in Cincinnati has done as it is host to a local U.S. Open qualifier and the home course for Xavier University. I think this is a far bigger problem for the game than the scores we see shot on TV being too low for someone's liking.

[Steve Kline]

Back to Jay Monahan...does he want Rory hitting it 245?

Absolutely not.


And, the one player I actually tune in to watch is Bryson. I personally don't like the guy, but I like watching him because of how he changed his game to bomb it.


And, while I was at the driving range the other, there was a little kid, maybe 5 years old hitting balls. Guess what Tour player I heard him talking about? Yep...Bryson.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Interesting take from Phil Mickelson on a ball rollback: (1:48 mark)

"If you remember when the liquid center golf ball was the ball of choice 20 years ago, there was more weight on the center of the ball than there was on the perimeter. Also, the liquid center did not spin at the same rate as the outer cover at impact. So at impact the outer cover was spinning fast, and the liquid was spinning at a slower rate.

When the spin of the liquid and the outer cover matched, the outer covers momentum slowed down, and the liquid center was faster… What if we just got rid of the perimeter weighting so the golf ball wasn’t as stable and we had more weight in the center of the golf ball, we are going to get more side spin. Who’s that going to affect? The guy that hits it 300 yards instead of 200 yards.”

I like this approach. The potential for higher side spin will restore a control element to the ball that has been lacking at the pro level for quite some time. Players distance will not be limited but will require higher level execution to maximize it. At the same time the increase in back spin could be an assistance to the average player.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the manufacturer's would very easily sell non-conforming clubs and people would buy them. The USGA's only leverage is their events and those of participating golf associations.

Your support for that is…? Almost nobody buys those illegal golf balls. Arnie's reputation took a hit endorsing the ERC II (IIRC), TaylorMade never went anywhere with their "proposed" crazy ideas.

"If you remember when the liquid center golf ball was the ball of choice 20 years ago, there was more weight on the center of the ball than there was on the perimeter. Also, the liquid center did not spin at the same rate as the outer cover at impact. So at impact the outer cover was spinning fast, and the liquid was spinning at a slower rate.

He's not said much here, so he's not said anything incorrect. Yet.

When the spin of the liquid and the outer cover matched, the outer covers momentum slowed down, and the liquid center was faster…

No…

What if we just got rid of the perimeter weighting so the golf ball wasn’t as stable and we had more weight in the center of the golf ball, we are going to get more side spin. Who’s that going to affect? The guy that hits it 300 yards instead of 200 yards.”

In other words… Phil thinks a fraction "more spin" is the cause, when we all should know that even doubling the amount of spin doesn't do a whole lot. Adding 10% won't do anything (and players would work around that and get back to their good numbers in little time).

I like this approach. The potential for higher side spin will restore a control element to the ball that has been lacking at the pro level for quite some time. Players distance will not be limited but will require higher level execution to maximize it. At the same time the increase in back spin could be an assistance to the average player.

No. A few hundred RPM more spin would do bupkis. Doubling it doesn't even have a large effect.

[Steve Kline]

Interesting take from Phil Mickelson on a ball rollback: (1:48 mark)

"If you remember when the liquid center golf ball was the ball of choice 20 years ago, there was more weight on the center of the ball than there was on the perimeter. Also, the liquid center did not spin at the same rate as the outer cover at impact. So at impact the outer cover was spinning fast, and the liquid was spinning at a slower rate.

When the spin of the liquid and the outer cover matched, the outer covers momentum slowed down, and the liquid center was faster… What if we just got rid of the perimeter weighting so the golf ball wasn’t as stable and we had more weight in the center of the golf ball, we are going to get more side spin. Who’s that going to affect? The guy that hits it 300 yards instead of 200 yards.”

I like this approach. The potential for higher side spin will restore a control element to the ball that has been lacking at the pro level for quite some time. Players distance will not be limited but will require higher level execution to maximize it. At the same time the increase in back spin could be an assistance to the average player.

If you had asked me to guess who said that then I would have guessed Bryson.

[Thomas Dai]

Back to Jay Monahan...does he want Rory hitting it 245?

I suspect if the money involved was great enough and went into the pockets of the appropriate vested interests neither of them nor loads of others would have a problem with it.
Cha-ching.
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

If you had asked me to guess who said that then I would have guessed Bryson.

Right? I have to wonder if The USGA got with Phil after his driver length comments and suggested he float out the previous on the ball construction as that is the way they're actually leaning and using Phil as a weather balloon can help them read the room.




Erik,


Do you know the MOI of a new Pro V1 vs. a Tour Balata? How would the MOI difference between the two balls impact their spin number both in back spin and side spin. If the MOI difference between those two balls is not great enough to change spin in a significant way, how much of an MOI difference would be required?


If increase the spin of the ball would do "bupkis", are you suggesting that the spin and control of balls 25 years ago has been blown out of proportion, or has the game overcome the negative effects of those balls?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you know the MOI of a new Pro V1 vs. a Tour Balata?

It wouldn't be hard to figure out. Just a density problem. I don't know it off-hand, but it's not like the ball has lead in the middle and is surrounded by air. It had a little liquid and was surrounded by pretty tightly wound rubber. I'd be surprised if the density was more than a little different from a modern ball.

If increase the spin of the ball would do "bupkis", are you suggesting that the spin and control of balls 25 years ago has been blown out of proportion, or has the game overcome the negative effects of those balls?

A fractional increase in ball spin would do bupkis. I say this because even a 100% increase (doubling) in ball spin doesn't do as much as people seem to think. Plug in the numbers into a launch optimizer, you'll see. I think I posted pictures earlier up-thread.

People act like the Tour Balata spun like crazy off the driver. It didn't. And even if you could make a Pro V1x spin 500 RPM more, it'd result in a pretty small change in distance/curve, and also be worked around pretty quickly by the tour guys (reps, players, fitters, engineers).

I'll quote a friend who made these:

The main issue with what Phil is trying to argue here is that spin rate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less. Going from 2500 RPM to 5500 RPM, which is MASSIVE on a tee shot, will produce the following curvatures with a 5% spin axis and PGA Tour-level ball speeds (180 MPH):

The difference is so tiny you have to zoom in REALLY close to even see the grey line that shows the path of the 2500 RPM tee shot, because they both curved very nearly the same distance off line.

Phil's comments about ball spin are uninformed.

[Garland Bayley]

We generally criticize someone who criticizes a course withou playing it. If you haven't had significant experience playing balata balls with persimmon woods, are you experienced enough to meaningfully discuss the distance issue between the two eras?

It seems to me that offering trackman data without such data from the previous era is somewhat meaningless.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We generally criticize someone who criticizes a course withou playing it. If you haven't had significant experience playing balata balls with persimmon woods, are you experienced enough to meaningfully discuss the distance issue between the two eras?

Should I dig up my first set of clubs? They were a matched set of persimmon headed driver, 3W, 5W with the Nicklaus/MacGregor VIP blades. No six-iron as my second cousin lost that one before I purchased the set from my great uncle with my Christmas money.

It seems to me that offering trackman data without such data from the previous era is somewhat meaningless.

It's just a matter of aerodynamics, and it's known what would happen if you change the spin rate of a ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()