Signs that Junior has a lot potential

tiger1873tiger1873 Members Posts: 1,018 ✭✭
edited Nov 29, 2018 in Juniors/College Golf Talk #1
I know lots has been talked about what is great but what are the signs that someone actually has talent in golf?



Over the years I am seeing really two things that matter especially in younger kids.



The first being consistent. The kids who can place a ball the same spot every time has some serious talent with a repeatable swing. Most kids are not capable of this and can't place multiple balls in a 2 yard spot every time. This goes over a lot peoples head because when they're young this isn't always the one winning and there are a lot reasons for this.





The second is feel. If you don't have feel you can't putt or chip especially on fast greens. Very few kids can get speed right on a fast green this how you know if they truly have feel. Slow greens are much easier and not the same thing. Understanding that speed is purely feel and either you have it you don't goes over most peoples heads. Kids that have good speed have always had it.





If a kid has those two things they have a lot potential as I don't think you can truly teach them either.
«1

Comments

  • Pinewood GolferPinewood Golfer Members Posts: 116 ✭✭
    tiger1873 wrote:


    I know lots has been talked about what is great but what are the signs that someone actually has talent in golf?



    Over the years I am seeing really two things that matter especially in younger kids.



    The first being consistent. The kids who can place a ball the same spot every time has some serious talent with a repeatable swing. Most kids are not capable of this and can't place multiple balls in a 2 yard spot every time. This goes over a lot peoples head because when they're young this isn't always the one winning and there are a lot reasons for this.





    The second is feel. If you don't have feel you can't putt or chip especially on fast greens. Very few kids can get speed right on a fast green. This another that goes over most peoples heads because speed doesn't always mean they make putts in the beginning.





    If a kid has those two things they have a lot potential as I don't think you can truly teach them either.




    First thing is drive. Potential is meaningless without the internal drive to excel.



    But theres more to it than that. Most young kids don’t have perfect swings or, quite honestly, even good swings. Most young kids haven’t had swings built for them yet.



    Potential exists when a kid can take a flawed swing and produce shots at a reasonably high and reasonably consistent level.



    Real potential exists when a youngster is very long for his/her SIZE, not age. You can see things in a youngsters swing like lower body use, corrections at impact that show a very natural—as opposed to taught—ability to perform well today and in the future.



    But really it’s kids that do those things and have the ability to “get the ball in the hole” more quickly than their skill level would suggest. Natural feel, touch, etc.



    It’s very easy to build an outstanding 7-10 year old golfer with enough time and money. We play against some of the best young kids in the world and my son’s results are sorta top half, you might say.



    But I can look at the other kids and know pretty easily who has a higher ceiling
  • DaddyCaddieIUDaddyCaddieIU Members Posts: 36 ✭✭
    At what age would you say elite juniors have a great feel for putting? I would say averaging 16 putts or less for 9 holes would be very good for a 5-8 year old.
  • BrianMcGBrianMcG Members Posts: 2,239 ✭✭
    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.
    Walter: Tell me Bobby, why do you play this game?
    Bobby: I play because I love it.
    Walter: Well I play for the money. I have to win. That is why every time we face each other I will always beat you.
  • kekoakekoa ClubWRX Posts: 8,789 ClubWRX
    Agree on the consistency part. Not only in ball striking, but also scores.



    I personally think my son has potential, but lately it almost feels like he has hit a wall of some sort. I don't see him really improving much in parts of his game and possibly even getting worse. I can't put my finger on it whether it's a motivational thing, mechanics, or otherwise.
  • yellowlover519yellowlover519 Members Posts: 281 ✭✭
    BrianMcG wrote:


    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.




    This - today’s golf and the future of golf. Athletic golfer has a higher ceiling than a robotic golfer. You can teach a kid to control short game distance on fast, medium and slow greens with hours of repetition. You cannot teach any kid how to be explosive off the tee or the hand eye coordination it takes to shape and flight shots regardless of repetition IMO.
  • Kenny Lee PuckettKenny Lee Puckett Members Posts: 3,460 ✭✭
    probably 99.9% of players will not play their entire lives for a living.



    placing them in competition early on is completely appropriate. but too much of "Junior golf" parenting I've seen is literally insane.



    IMO ultimately the goal should be the kids going out, have fun, and grip it and rip it.



    this beautiful game can be enjoyed by them for a lifetime, I can't think of another one like it.
    [font=tahoma,geneva,sans-serif]PING G LST: Ping Tour 80
    PING Anser 4wd: Accra S380 RT
    PXG 0317: Fujikura Rombax 8D07HB
    PING i500 4 iron: D.G. 120
    PING S55 5-PW: D.G. Tour Issue
    PING Glide 2.0 50/54/58: D.G. Tour Issue
    PING Darby F Ti Pixel: SS 2.0 Mid
    PING: Sensor Glove, Ping 703 Cord grips
    PING: Hoofer Bag
    TaylorMade: TP5 & TP5x ball

    WITB photos: [/font]
    http://www.golfwrx.c...uckett-witb-19/
  • tiger1873tiger1873 Members Posts: 1,018 ✭✭
    edited Nov 29, 2018 #8


    At what age would you say elite juniors have a great feel for putting? I would say averaging 16 putts or less for 9 holes would be very good for a 5-8 year old.




    I would say 10-11 is where you really start to see these things. Younger then that is tough because kids get tired and they're just kids so it's a challenge for them focus and play golf for hours on end.


    kekoa wrote:


    Agree on the consistency part. Not only in ball striking, but also scores.



    I personally think my son has potential, but lately it almost feels like he has hit a wall of some sort. I don't see him really improving much in parts of his game and possibly even getting worse. I can't put my finger on it whether it's a motivational thing, mechanics, or otherwise.




    Scores go up and down if you talking about kids as they grow. I really think that scoring low everytime is not that important until they're older. I also don't like kids in tournaments where every shot needs to a birdie to win because the field is large and course is too easy for every kid. I don't think any kid should have that sort of pressure when they are that young.



    A good test to see if they repeat the swing is take 10 balls and let them hit it with a club they like and see where it lands. Ideally you want to do this on an empty golf course and hit into green but really can do this in a park or anywhere you have enough room and decent place to hit it off. Also just have them pick the target and tell them to just go at it.



    I done this with my kids and it really helps with telling you how close they can expect a shot to land. It also helps to video it if you can so you can identify issues in ball flight that are consistent. If the balls all land in tight circle then it really opens up possibilities. If not then you can manage expectations too so either way it helps.
  • theothertwotheothertwo Members Posts: 2,478 ✭✭
    edited Nov 29, 2018 #9
    Long ball hitter, good chipper and putter, solid iron player but above all IMO, a love for the game along with a good and mature temperament. Patience and ability to grind.



    Modesty aside, my son had all of the above and was a successful varsity and junior golfer in high school but other interests took priority and golf became just a hobby to him. He only played in 2 junior events, won one and 2nd on the other - both boys 14-15 SCPGA Junior Tour events. He's 26 now and still maintains a respectable handicap although he very rarely plays.



    We only provided opportunities and he took up golf and piano as major hobbies. He still does both but not professionally.



    He had a very good golf instructor and piano teacher and he was lucky in that sense, great teachers are the key IMO.



    My only contribution is to show him what not to do, especially in a golf swing.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Honma TW 727 455s 10.5* Driver
    Callaway BB Alpha 816 17* 5 Wood
    Titleist 818 H1 21* Hybrid
    Honma TW 727 UT 25* Hybrid
    Miura CB 57 4-PW Irons
    Miura 2018 Tour Wedges 52* and 58*
    Taylor Made TP Black Copper Ardmore 3 Putter
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭

    BrianMcG wrote:


    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.




    This - today’s golf and the future of golf. Athletic golfer has a higher ceiling than a robotic golfer. You can teach a kid to control short game distance on fast, medium and slow greens with hours of repetition. You cannot teach any kid how to be explosive off the tee or the hand eye coordination it takes to shape and flight shots regardless of repetition IMO.




    Until they change the ball or equipment rules to deemphasize distance



    Golf historically was not dominated by power hitters



    It can change just like they did with putters



    Signs that a kid is talented is usually obvious



    A coach or parent who has been around a lot of junior sports can recognize when a kid is something special



    But the most important thing for success is kid has to love it, wants to be the best and is able connect her effort to improvement and result



    At that point it’s all up to them in terms of how far they get
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,019 ✭✭
    TigerMom wrote:

    BrianMcG wrote:


    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.




    This - today’s golf and the future of golf. Athletic golfer has a higher ceiling than a robotic golfer. You can teach a kid to control short game distance on fast, medium and slow greens with hours of repetition. You cannot teach any kid how to be explosive off the tee or the hand eye coordination it takes to shape and flight shots regardless of repetition IMO.




    Until they change the ball or equipment rules to deemphasize distance



    Golf historically was not dominated by power hitters






    Wrong. Golf has always been mostly dominated by longer hitters with great short games.



    If they change the ball and equipment it will only make the longer hitters more dominant.



    Do you think people go to a baseball game to see a bunt single? No. They go to see a homerun.



    Do you think people go to a football game to see a 1 yard run up the middle? No, they go to see an 80 yard touchdown pass.



    Do you think people go to a basketball game to see them shoot free throws? No. They go to the game to see slam dunks.



    When people go to a PGA tour event they aren’t following the guy who drives it 280. They follow and watch the guys driving it 300+.
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭

    TigerMom wrote:

    BrianMcG wrote:


    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.




    This - today’s golf and the future of golf. Athletic golfer has a higher ceiling than a robotic golfer. You can teach a kid to control short game distance on fast, medium and slow greens with hours of repetition. You cannot teach any kid how to be explosive off the tee or the hand eye coordination it takes to shape and flight shots regardless of repetition IMO.




    Until they change the ball or equipment rules to deemphasize distance



    Golf historically was not dominated by power hitters






    Wrong. Golf has always been mostly dominated by longer hitters with great short games.



    If they change the ball and equipment it will only make the longer hitters more dominant.



    Do you think people go to a baseball game to see a bunt single? No. They go to see a homerun.



    Do you think people go to a football game to see a 1 yard run up the middle? No, they go to see an 80 yard touchdown pass.



    Do you think people go to a basketball game to see them shoot free throws? No. They go to the game to see slam dunks.



    When people go to a PGA tour event they aren’t following the guy who drives it 280. They follow and watch the guys driving it 300+.




    Heavyman,



    YOU are WRONG



    look at the winners of majors in the 80s and 90s and the driving distance rankings



    some were long hitters, most were not
  • augustgolfaugustgolf Golf with dignity Coastal NCMembers Posts: 3,891 ✭✭
    TigerMom wrote:

    BrianMcG wrote:


    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.




    This - today’s golf and the future of golf. Athletic golfer has a higher ceiling than a robotic golfer. You can teach a kid to control short game distance on fast, medium and slow greens with hours of repetition. You cannot teach any kid how to be explosive off the tee or the hand eye coordination it takes to shape and flight shots regardless of repetition IMO.




    Until they change the ball or equipment rules to deemphasize distance



    Golf historically was not dominated by power hitters






    Wrong. Golf has always been mostly dominated by longer hitters with great short games.



    If they change the ball and equipment it will only make the longer hitters more dominant.



    Do you think people go to a baseball game to see a bunt single? No. They go to see a homerun.



    Do you think people go to a football game to see a 1 yard run up the middle? No, they go to see an 80 yard touchdown pass.



    Do you think people go to a basketball game to see them shoot free throws? No. They go to the game to see slam dunks.



    When people go to a PGA tour event they aren’t following the guy who drives it 280. They follow and watch the guys driving it 300+.


    They go to NASCAR & the Indy 500 to see the crashes
    Pings from the beginning

    OGA member 1415
    or is it 1514...
    I don't remember exactly
  • tiger1873tiger1873 Members Posts: 1,018 ✭✭
    edited Nov 30, 2018 #14
    TigerMom wrote:


    TigerMom wrote:

    BrianMcG wrote:


    If they are good at other sports and pick things up quickly.




    This - today’s golf and the future of golf. Athletic golfer has a higher ceiling than a robotic golfer. You can teach a kid to control short game distance on fast, medium and slow greens with hours of repetition. You cannot teach any kid how to be explosive off the tee or the hand eye coordination it takes to shape and flight shots regardless of repetition IMO.




    Until they change the ball or equipment rules to deemphasize distance



    Golf historically was not dominated by power hitters






    Wrong. Golf has always been mostly dominated by longer hitters with great short games.



    If they change the ball and equipment it will only make the longer hitters more dominant.



    Do you think people go to a baseball game to see a bunt single? No. They go to see a homerun.



    Do you think people go to a football game to see a 1 yard run up the middle? No, they go to see an 80 yard touchdown pass.



    Do you think people go to a basketball game to see them shoot free throws? No. They go to the game to see slam dunks.



    When people go to a PGA tour event they aren’t following the guy who drives it 280. They follow and watch the guys driving it 300+.




    Heavyman,



    YOU are WRONG



    look at the winners of majors in the 80s and 90s and the driving distance rankings



    some were long hitters, most were not




    Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer , Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman and many others were much much longer then a lot people. The reality is to score low you need to be be able to get the ball down the fairway a long way. I don't think there is anyone on tour ever that hit the ball with the same distance of the average weekend golfer.



    The fact that most people don't have distance to score low leads them to a false hope they can score low if they work on the short game. The more I am around golf the more I see there is a limit on what people can score based on their driving ability based on the yardage you play from. So what that means if you playing a 5000 yard tee you will need X distance but jump that to 6000 or 7000 yards and you need X+1 or X+2 distance to break par.



    With Kids you see huge yardage jumps over certain years. I seen a lot kids win at 7 or 8 but couldn't hack it at 10 or 11 because the distance was just not there and quit. From I can see the next jump is 13 or 14. Based on what I know for girls at lot girls score pretty well that are 11-12 but a lot them can't get past 200 yards for whatever reason. Those kids are in trouble for sure in a few years. Looking at older groups I seen kids who at one time routinely scored in the low 70's can't break 90 and that is simply because I seen them play in the past and they are probably not able to hit it past 200 yards. I am sure the same thing is for boys but the distances are different.
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭
    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more
  • jj9000jj9000 ClubWRX Posts: 2,609 ClubWRX
    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭
    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.




    experts (not you) seem to agree with my point
  • jj9000jj9000 ClubWRX Posts: 2,609 ClubWRX
    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.




    experts (not you) seem to agree with my point




    So, the "experts" have analyzed the data and have come to a unanimous conclusion that the ball is the sole contributor to longer distance (and winning) on Tour?



    This is your assertion? Seriously?



    The ball is a contributing factor...sure.



    Along with many other factors you haven't mentioned.



    Faster swingers are gaining advantage because they're swinging faster. Ask yourself why they are swinging faster.
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭
    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.




    experts (not you) seem to agree with my point




    So, the "experts" have analyzed the data and have come to a unanimous conclusion that the ball is the sole contributor to longer distance (and winning) on Tour?



    This is your assertion? Seriously?



    The ball is a contributing factor...sure.



    Along with many other factors you haven't mentioned.



    Faster swingers are gaining advantage because they're swinging faster. Ask yourself why they are swinging faster.




    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective



    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about
  • jj9000jj9000 ClubWRX Posts: 2,609 ClubWRX
    TigerMom wrote:


    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective




    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about




    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html



    I'm not getting anything. You just made my point for me, above in RED FONT.



    Also, I've linked a definition of correlation/causation for your perusal.



    Have a great day!!
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭
    edited Nov 30, 2018 #21
    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective




    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about




    https://ipfs.io/ipfs..._causation.html



    I'm not getting anything. You just made my point for me, above in RED FONT.



    Also, I've linked a definition of correlation/causation for your perusal.



    Have a great day!!




    you didn't prove anything with your wikipedia link



    a simple test would be take a modern ball (prov1) and construct a replica of older model



    have long, medium and short hitters hit both



    measure dispersion



    the longer hitters would most likely be hitting new balls MUCH longer than other hitters vs their distance difference using old balls



    no wonder they have increased advantage



    i'm glad you are going away - you have added nothing to this discussion
  • jj9000jj9000 ClubWRX Posts: 2,609 ClubWRX
    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective




    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about




    https://ipfs.io/ipfs..._causation.html



    I'm not getting anything. You just made my point for me, above in RED FONT.



    Also, I've linked a definition of correlation/causation for your perusal.



    Have a great day!!




    you didn't prove anything with your wikipedia link



    a simple test would be take a modern ball (prov1) and construct a replica of older model



    have long, medium and short hitters hit both



    measure dispersion



    the longer hitters would most likely be hitting new balls MUCH longer than other hitters vs their distance difference using old balls



    no wonder they have increased advantage



    i'm glad you are going away - you have added nothing to this discussion




    Not gone just yet. I do, however, enjoy when folks dig their heels in despite overwhelming evidence.



    You conveniently glossed over Leezer's Driving stats above (copied again below)



    So...to be clear. Your conclusion...verbatim ([background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of [/background][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]ball)[/background]



    ProV1 was introduced in 2000. What happened from 2013-2017. Did the ball change? Did something else change? Do you know, or have conclusive evidence that the ball is the only reason for the 2013-2017 delta? The answer is...no...you don't.



    Calling Correlation not implying Causation "stupid" kind of solidifies my point here.



    You said above it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening. the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective.



    I can't put the pieces together any clearer for you.



  • augustgolfaugustgolf Golf with dignity Coastal NCMembers Posts: 3,891 ✭✭
    [sharedmedia=core:attachments:4739442]
    Pings from the beginning

    OGA member 1415
    or is it 1514...
    I don't remember exactly
  • tiger1873tiger1873 Members Posts: 1,018 ✭✭
    edited Nov 30, 2018 #24
    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective




    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about




    https://ipfs.io/ipfs..._causation.html



    I'm not getting anything. You just made my point for me, above in RED FONT.



    Also, I've linked a definition of correlation/causation for your perusal.



    Have a great day!!




    you didn't prove anything with your wikipedia link



    a simple test would be take a modern ball (prov1) and construct a replica of older model



    have long, medium and short hitters hit both



    measure dispersion



    the longer hitters would most likely be hitting new balls MUCH longer than other hitters vs their distance difference using old balls



    no wonder they have increased advantage



    i'm glad you are going away - you have added nothing to this discussion




    Technology has played a role but that was back in the 80's and 90's when some good players got left behind on tour. Back then some guys were traditionalists and hung on to their persimmons woods. The last guy to win with a persimmon was I think in 1993 and was Bernhard Langer. The better players all used persimmons and actually drove the ball far enough for their needs. I think eventually by the late 90's most of those guys retired.



    I read somewhere that tiger actually used a lot the newer tech when he came on tour and that is when the arms race really happened. Now we just have catch up pretty soon we are not going to see gains that much more.
  • kcapkcap Members Posts: 154 ✭✭
    tiger1873 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective




    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about




    https://ipfs.io/ipfs..._causation.html



    I'm not getting anything. You just made my point for me, above in RED FONT.



    Also, I've linked a definition of correlation/causation for your perusal.



    Have a great day!!




    you didn't prove anything with your wikipedia link



    a simple test would be take a modern ball (prov1) and construct a replica of older model



    have long, medium and short hitters hit both



    measure dispersion



    the longer hitters would most likely be hitting new balls MUCH longer than other hitters vs their distance difference using old balls



    no wonder they have increased advantage



    i'm glad you are going away - you have added nothing to this discussion




    Technology has played a role but that was back in the 80's and 90's when some good players got left behind on tour. Back then some guys were traditionalists and hung on to their persimmons woods. The last guy to win with a persimmon was I think in 1993 and was Bernhard Langer. The better players all used persimmons and actually drove the ball far enough for their needs. I think eventually by the late 90's most of those guys retired.



    I read somewhere that tiger actually used a lot the newer tech when he came on tour and that is when the arms race really happened. Now we just have catch up pretty soon we are not going to see gains that much more.




    Not taking any sides on this very entertaining debate!!





    https://www.pga.com/golf-instruction/golf-buzz/how-far-would-golfs-legends-drive-ball-using-modern-equipment



    An interesting article on this topic.

    Chad Campbell averaged 291 yards off the tee in 2009, ranking 70th on the PGA Tour. At the Byron Nelson Classic that year, he hit Titleist Balata 100 balls on the driving range with a persimmon driver supplied by noted golf author Curt Sampson, according to a blog post published at GolfDigest.com.


    The results were startling.


    His average drive with the Byron Nelson wooden driver went 247 yards. The ball carried 270 yards off his driver, which measured 45” and 230 off the relic, which measured 43”.


    He swung the 150-gram steel shaft in the persimmon at 106 miles per hour. He swung the 75-gram graphite shaft in his driver at 113 miles per hour. A driver two inches longer and two ounces lighter enabled Campbell to generate more speed. According to golf club designer Tom Wishon in a post on GolfWRX.com, each mile-per-hour of clubhead speed equals 2.8 yards of carry. He wrote that advancements in golf equipment account for at best, 25 percent of the distance increase.
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭
    kcap wrote:

    tiger1873 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    your simplistic "causation not correlation" comment is dumb



    sorry



    you provide some evidence and prove otherwise



    many commentators agree the ball is the problem



    it doesn't have to explain 100% of what is happening



    the actual % is unknowable and arguably subjective




    go get your own facts and show us you know what you're talking about




    https://ipfs.io/ipfs..._causation.html



    I'm not getting anything. You just made my point for me, above in RED FONT.



    Also, I've linked a definition of correlation/causation for your perusal.



    Have a great day!!




    you didn't prove anything with your wikipedia link



    a simple test would be take a modern ball (prov1) and construct a replica of older model



    have long, medium and short hitters hit both



    measure dispersion



    the longer hitters would most likely be hitting new balls MUCH longer than other hitters vs their distance difference using old balls



    no wonder they have increased advantage



    i'm glad you are going away - you have added nothing to this discussion




    Technology has played a role but that was back in the 80's and 90's when some good players got left behind on tour. Back then some guys were traditionalists and hung on to their persimmons woods. The last guy to win with a persimmon was I think in 1993 and was Bernhard Langer. The better players all used persimmons and actually drove the ball far enough for their needs. I think eventually by the late 90's most of those guys retired.



    I read somewhere that tiger actually used a lot the newer tech when he came on tour and that is when the arms race really happened. Now we just have catch up pretty soon we are not going to see gains that much more.




    Not taking any sides on this very entertaining debate!!





    https://www.pga.com/...odern-equipment



    An interesting article on this topic.

    Chad Campbell averaged 291 yards off the tee in 2009, ranking 70th on the PGA Tour. At the Byron Nelson Classic that year, he hit Titleist Balata 100 balls on the driving range with a persimmon driver supplied by noted golf author Curt Sampson, according to a blog post published at GolfDigest.com.

    The results were startling.

    His average drive with the Byron Nelson wooden driver went 247 yards. The ball carried 270 yards off his driver, which measured 45” and 230 off the relic, which measured 43”.

    He swung the 150-gram steel shaft in the persimmon at 106 miles per hour. He swung the 75-gram graphite shaft in his driver at 113 miles per hour. A driver two inches longer and two ounces lighter enabled Campbell to generate more speed. According to golf club designer Tom Wishon in a post on GolfWRX.com, each mile-per-hour of clubhead speed equals 2.8 yards of carry. He wrote that advancements in golf equipment account for at best, 25 percent of the distance increase.




    hey jj0009,



    read the article



    maybe you know better than them
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,019 ✭✭
    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.




    experts (not you) seem to agree with my point




    So, the "experts" have analyzed the data and have come to a unanimous conclusion that the ball is the sole contributor to longer distance (and winning) on Tour?



    This is your assertion? Seriously?



    The ball is a contributing factor...sure.



    Along with many other factors you haven't mentioned.



    Faster swingers are gaining advantage because they're swinging faster. Ask yourself why they are swinging faster.




    This is why I try to stay out of arguments with Tigermom. Her assertions across the board are foolish. She comes here to seek advice, but already has a fallacy made up in her mind and sticks to it.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,019 ✭✭
    TigerMom wrote:




    hey jj0009,



    read the article



    maybe you know better than them




    This article has nothing to do with your statement. It is also based on hypothetical s.
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.




    experts (not you) seem to agree with my point




    So, the "experts" have analyzed the data and have come to a unanimous conclusion that the ball is the sole contributor to longer distance (and winning) on Tour?



    This is your assertion? Seriously?



    The ball is a contributing factor...sure.



    Along with many other factors you haven't mentioned.



    Faster swingers are gaining advantage because they're swinging faster. Ask yourself why they are swinging faster.




    This is why I try to stay out of arguments with Tigermom. Her assertions across the board are foolish. She comes here to seek advice, but already has a fallacy made up in her mind and sticks to it.




    Heavyman,



    what advice did i seek in this thread?



    i am adding value by probably telling you something you didn't know



    i am not saying others are WRONG unlike you



    YOU are the one who is WRONG with your "Golf has always been mostly dominated by longer hitters" comment



    take a look at the other majors if you don't believe me
  • TigerMomTigerMom Members Posts: 223 ✭✭

    TigerMom wrote:


    hey jj0009,



    read the article



    maybe you know better than them




    This article has nothing to do with your statement. It is also based on hypothetical s.




    “Once we got into a wound golf ball and once we got into steel shafts, the game from basically the early 1930s until 1995 changed very little, and all the golf courses that were built needed very little adjustment to be able to handle any kind of a tournament," Nicklaus told USA Today in 2007.

    ...

    As Nicklaus states, the ball has played a large role. Driving distances changed little over decades.





    Heavyman,



    maybe you know better than Jack?
  • kekoakekoa ClubWRX Posts: 8,789 ClubWRX

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:

    jj9000 wrote:

    TigerMom wrote:


    the average rank in driving distance for winner of the US Open



    1980s was #89



    1990s it was #99



    2000s #50



    2010s #35



    Titleist ProV1 was introduced in 2000



    if you look at statistics of driving distance the average goes up over time



    but the standard deviation going up a lot faster



    that means faster swinging players gaining more advantage because of ball



    if you change ball rule the long hitter advantage is less, not more




    Correlation =/= Causation



    You picked a data point (the ball), and you're basing your argument on that single data point.




    experts (not you) seem to agree with my point




    So, the "experts" have analyzed the data and have come to a unanimous conclusion that the ball is the sole contributor to longer distance (and winning) on Tour?



    This is your assertion? Seriously?



    The ball is a contributing factor...sure.



    Along with many other factors you haven't mentioned.



    Faster swingers are gaining advantage because they're swinging faster. Ask yourself why they are swinging faster.




    This is why I try to stay out of arguments with Tigermom. Her assertions across the board are foolish. She comes here to seek advice, but already has a fallacy made up in her mind and sticks to it.




    Just stop replying to her posts. He/She is a troll and I'm standing by that until proven wrong by some proof that He/She is an actual person and not just some side handle used by another user.
«1
This discussion has been closed.