Anchoring putters

[TimV]

[b] [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/user/62323-birly-shirly/"]birly-shirly[/url][/b]

"[color=#282828]I doubt whether anyone on tour anywhere is using anything smaller than 400cc.But I don't understand what that proves with respect to putting. My point is just that putting can be a great leveller, and an opportunity to compete for guys who didn't win the fast-twitch genetic lottery but who can nail 5 and 6 footers under pressure. That to me seems like a worthwhile principle - and more attractive than a mechanical solution that prevents someone from self-destructing when they get near the hole."[/color]
[color="#282828"]You agree that everyone has gone to a larger driver. They did that because it gives them an advantage over a smaller driver. Why would they do it otherwise? I am saying that if the long putter gave everyone an advantage over a "standard" putter that everyone would have gone to it also. They didn't though! To me that proves that a long putter is not an automatic advantage as is a large volume driver versus a small volume driver. Everyone went to the driver but only a few went to the putter. To me that means that PGA banning the long putter is pure crapola. A few of the top players (at that time) whined and the PGA caved. I think it's complete b.s. And, jsyk, I don't use one myself and don't personally like them. [/color]

[oldschoolrocker]

That great American pastime of baseball has on many different occasions changed the playing parameters when it seemed one side, or the other was gaining an advantage. The pitchers mound has been raised and lowered at times. The balls have been juiced, or deadened when the ruling body deemed it necessary. It's equipment has an operating envelope to be adhered to.
As much as I would like to see golf turn back the hands of time, I don't think it will happen. Once the genie was let out of the bottle, I don't think it can be corked back in.

[stevemcgee99]

We can speculate on what impact the new equipment has vs. the fitness or boldness of players has on the 'outlier players' who over-shoot greens on par 4s.

But I think the only way we'd really know if it's possible to reign in the tour results to keep historical golf courses relevant is to give them old clubs and old balls and see what happens. There are way too many variables otherwise. Many are listed in this thread, including grass.

Same player and era, different equipment. That's the only way we'll know.

I'd love to know if Bubba Watson is actually a better player than Arnold Palmer.

Or if he just has better equipment.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='TimV' timestamp='1439925450' post='12163350']
[b] [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/user/62323-birly-shirly/"]birly-shirly[/url][/b]

"[color=#282828]I doubt whether anyone on tour anywhere is using anything smaller than 400cc.But I don't understand what that proves with respect to putting. My point is just that putting can be a great leveller, and an opportunity to compete for guys who didn't win the fast-twitch genetic lottery but who can nail 5 and 6 footers under pressure. That to me seems like a worthwhile principle - and more attractive than a mechanical solution that prevents someone from self-destructing when they get near the hole."[/color]
[color=#282828]You agree that everyone has gone to a larger driver. They did that because it gives them an advantage over a smaller driver. Why would they do it otherwise?[b] I am saying that if the long putter gave everyone an advantage over a "standard" putter that everyone would have gone to it also. They didn't though! To me that proves that a long putter is not an automatic advantage as is a large volume driver versus a small volume driver. [/b]Everyone went to the driver but only a few went to the putter. To me that means that PGA banning the long putter is pure crapola. A few of the top players (at that time) whined and the PGA caved. I think it's complete b.s. And, jsyk, I don't use one myself and don't personally like them. [/color]
[/quote]

I think putters and drivers can't be compared.

By your own logic, why would some players be using long putters unless they thought that it did provide an advantage?

Whilst I don't think that a long putter is a "better" club than a conventional putter I do suspect that it's often providing something of a crutch for a relatively poor putter.

And there lies the distinction for me. I find it very hard to believe that driver technology will be keeping anyone on tour who couldn't otherwise play at that level. (I do suspect that there are some older players who remain competitive despite age and the loss of a bit of raw clubhead speed as they learn to max out their impact conditions. But that's as much a launch monitor issue as a driver issue, and I have no objection in principle to the trade off between raw power and precision.)

On the other hand, I do tend to think that some players have resorted to anchored putters when they've begun to doubt their ability to hole out.

If you like the idea that an anchored putting stroke can prop up the career of someone who still strikes the ball well but is nervy around the cup, that's fine. Maybe we'd have seen less competitive golf from the likes of Langer, Montgomery, Singh and Woosnam (all great ballstrikers) if they'd had to hold a wobbly putter still without mechanical assistance. I can see the harshness of that, but in the realm of competitive sport, I don't see it as manifestly unfair.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1439905851' post='12160726']
[quote name='scomac2002' timestamp='1439898593' post='12160102']
There seems to have been a big jump in the last couple of years in how far these guys are hitting the ball.[/quote]


Fortunately, we can measure that. I dug through the PGA Tour driving stats for every even numbered year (arbitrary choice) from 2004-2014, copied the data for every player listed into Excel and did a simple Total Distance / Total Drives calculation.

And here's what I got:

2004 - 285.26
2006 - 287.37
2008 - 285.77
2010 - 285.46
2012 - 287.96
2014 - 287.69

As you can see, it's been pretty flat for ten years now.

What this suggests to me is any number of a few things... TV only showing the long hitters. TV exaggerating the distances (from those with whom I've interacted who've walked the course, this is definitely in play). And maybe a certain amount of alarmism, no offense intended to anyone.

The only real improvement in the last few years is the creation of driver, fairway wood, and hybrid clubheads that produce lower spin, which is a boon to the higher swingspeed player, of course. But, as we can see, the numbers are flat for the last ten years, so it can't be doing all THAT much.

I dug up my 1999 vs 2002 spreadsheet to verify, and the distance difference is even less than I remembered. What I did for that was compare driving distance stats for 1999, when virtually everyone was using a wound ball, to 2002, which should have been the first full season virtually everyone was using a solid core ball. Only numbers from those who participated in both years were used for comparison.

The difference was 5.5 yards. (FWIW, 273.44 in 1999, 279.0 in 2002)

In the late 90s, the average driver club length was under 44½". It's now pretty close to 45". Let's use an added half inch for the sake of convenience. Per Hireko (former Dynacraft), that is worth 1.8% of clubhead speed. Using the 113 mph avg driver swingspeed, we could say that's about 2 mph greater than 15 years ago. At 2.5 yds per mph, that's 5 yards.

So, from 1999, we've gone from 273 yds in 1999 to 288 yds in 2014. Of that, 5-6 yards is solid core ball. 5 more yards for the added half inch of club length. Which leaves us with 5 yards for other factors.

I'm sorry, I just don't see that as worth any excitement.
[/quote]

I have to admit, I can be a stubborn so-and-so when it comes to clinging to one's prejudices. But NRJyzr's relentless and forensic analysis of the ball issue is turning me into a believer.

It flies in the face of so much that is reported as fact, and authoritative opinion - and of course it aligns with the lamentable lobbying of industry apologists, but I think NRJyzr may have turned me.

And to cap it all, I recently stumbled across a Titleist wound balata. Goodness knows how long it had been lying there, and I'm sure we've all heard the stories of people cracking open sleeves of unhit balatas to find that they're mush. But this thing, admittedly on a very unscientific trial of only a few amateur hits, really goes. I don't know whether it's very unforgiving of mishits (I do remember how easy they are to cut) but in the course of a few holes I found that I hit several iron shots and one or two drives that went every bit as far as I could expect to hit a modern ball.

[SteveNZ]

This is worth a read.

http://www.pgatour.com/content/dam/pgatour/shotlink/rutgers.pdf

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1439935266' post='12164714']
I have to admit, I can be a stubborn so-and-so when it comes to clinging to one's prejudices. But NRJyzr's relentless... <snipped>
[/quote]

BS, your comment triggered a memory...

I'm an American born male of Finnish (and Norwegian) descent. There are a not inconsiderable number of Finn-Americans in the state of Minnesota.

There's a saying that goes along with that. Which is, "you can always tell a Finn, but you can't tell him much"

I'm told it might apply to me. LOL

[farmer]

Back in the day, courses shown on tv wanted to to be pretty and green, so they were watered before tour events. Fairways were generally cut at 1/2 inch. Now, the trend is for courses to try to be firm and fast, eg, dry, and fairways stimp about 8.

[BIG STU]

I have been reading all of this so I will put my .02 FWIW.
The whole anchored putting thing came to a head when Adam Scott won a major with a broomstick putter. I can remember that Nobilo and Chamblee on The Golf Channel got to raising hell about the anchored putters and got the ball rolling. Lately the USGA and R&A have been making rules decisions pertaining to professional tours without regard to the regular Joe. They have failed to realize that the average Joe is the backbone of the golf industry. I do not know where their heads are at. All the recent rules changes have been because of things happening on the Professional side of things. I have said it in the past and I will say it again the USGA was in cahoots with the major manufacturers on the groove thing. I cannot understand the anchoring ban because if it was that much of an advantage everyone would be doing it. I guess the next crusade for them will be the counter balanced putters or the oversized grips. As far as balls if they would cut back on the balls it would hurt the major manufacturers. Just think if they cut back the ball tomorrow how many millions or billions of balls that meets today's standards are out there now? Suppose they did that today the tour players get balls free the companies depend on folks like us to buy new balls to show a profit. Besides the average Joe golfer could care less about the PGA USGA or the R&A they just play their way. I would dare to say that out of all the people that play today probably less than 5% keep a legit handicap or play in sanctioned events.
I quit doing my USGA membership thing when they did the groove decision. I went to raising hell at them and someone pointed out that If I was no longer a member I did not have a right to raise hell. So I joined back 2 years ago. trust me I raise hell at them and they know it. Figgured they may kick me out but I guess they need my $15 a year too much. It seems that way they were constantly bombarding me to renew my membership this year. Yep sadly it is not about the intregrity of the game it is all about money. Rant Over!

[oldschoolrocker]

Didn't sound like too much of a rant to me Stu, just straight honest telling it like it is. You are spot on the mark with the comments about the OEMs, integrity and $$$. Makes you wonder if the tail is wagging the dog.

[HoldenCornfield]

[url="https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en"]Are Athletes Really Getting Faster, Stronger, Better?[/url]

This guy, who's written an entire book on it (The Sports Gene) says not really. The human species hasn't evolved that much in 100 years. What's at play here are two things: technology and artificial selection.

[scomac2002]

Thanks for posting the link, Holden. That pretty much confirms many of our suspicions and no surprise to me really.

What is even more interesting is that it appears we now have the technology to determine how athletes of the past would perform in today's world, so one would think it is possible to determine just how far a Snead, Hogan or Nicklaus in their primes would hit the ball with today's equipment.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='HoldenCornfield' timestamp='1439984433' post='12167938'] [url="https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en"]Are Athletes Really Getting Faster, Stronger, Better?[/url] This guy, who's written an entire book on it (The Sports Gene) says not really. The human species hasn't evolved that much in 100 years. What's at play here are two things: technology and artificial selection. [/quote]


Really interesting talk. Thanks for posting.

I don't think I would ever argue that athletic improvements are evolutionary. I believe that the chances of mankind evolving significantly in only 100 years are just a little bit better than my chances of evolving during my lifetime.

The technology contribution of course kicks in at several levels. The competitive environment, the equipment and of course improved training and coaching.

His last point was about more aggressive or ambitious attitudes and expectations - and I very much buy into that expectation of driving distance in golf.

Kids who grow up, or newbies who join the tour, and see the distance that a Jack or a Tiger or a Norman drives the ball are naturally going to think of all the ways in which they can compete with that.

[I also happen to think that in eras where more conservative golfers were dominant, and I'm thinking particularly of Hogan and Faldo - there was likely to be something of a drift in the other direction as the idea takes hold that technical precision and strategic positioning were to be pursued. Having grown up during the era in which Faldo was the best player in Europe and then dismantled his swing to come back as the dominant player in the world - I think that example was a very significant influence in the proliferation of tour coaches and swing rebuilds, and maybe even the decline and fall of the likes of Seve, Lyle and Baker-Finch. Not to mention TW.]

Another story from my youth. A college coach brought his golf team to Scotland and played a match at a local club. This was around the time of the first TM Burners becoming ubiquitous. The coach was saying at the time that his young players, being early adopters of this new technology, were just bombing it. [And it has to be said, they were.] But looking back, I don't think there was anything technological in those small headed, thick walled, steel shafted clubs that would launch the ball further. What there was, was a group of physically fit young guys all trying to hit it as far and further than their peers. That drive would be held somewhat in check by mantras like "swing at 85%" and "the woods are full of long drivers" so people would not go absolutely balls-out to hit it as far as humanly possible. But certainly as far as humanly necessary - judged by reference to the guys around them.

[quote name='scomac2002' timestamp='1439988056' post='12168238'] Thanks for posting the link, Holden. That pretty much confirms many of our suspicions and no surprise to me really. What is even more interesting is that it appears we now have the technology to determine how athletes of the past would perform in today's world, so one would think it is possible to determine just how far a Snead, Hogan or Nicklaus in their primes would hit the ball with today's equipment. [/quote]

I've always felt that you could take any of the dominant and long-hitting golfers from previous eras, from Vardon and Jones down through Palmer and Nicklaus - and if it were possible to drop them into the current tour environment, they'd find a way to hit it far enough to compete. I don't think any of those guys were long by accident. They were long because they wanted to bomb it out there. We know from both Harmon and Haney that Tiger very consciously pursued opportunities to maximise his distance advantage over the field. Jack too, as he aged and the field began to catch him up, started messing with his driver set up to try and gain some yards.

[BIG STU]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1439979225' post='12167774']
Didn't sound like too much of a rant to me Stu, just straight honest telling it like it is. You are spot on the mark with the comments about the OEMs, integrity and $$$. Makes you wonder if the tail is wagging the dog.
[/quote]Thanks Randy it goes to show us old Navy vets think alike

[BIG STU]

Man I can remember the first metal driver I ever hit. It was a King Cobra. I had a hooking problem in those days and I tried a friend's driver. That ball would hit with that hook spin and keep on getting on right into trouble. Now I do remember that driver had a steel S-300 in it. Of course I was pretty long for the times with the persimmon anyhow and I could keep it reasonably in the fairway. Back in those days I hit persimmon with a balata ball about 270/280 with the roll out on a hard fairway in the summer.

[jonnygrouville]

Ooof! Did some papers in evolutionary anatomy during my degree in archaeology, but never thought I would be dredging up that knowledge in a golf discussion. Not going anywhere near this as you would never shut me up, h*** Bubbawatsonensis and so on.

Yes, there have always been people that hit it a long way. People hit it a long way in the persimmon era. I remember going to watch Grouville senior play in something and he was a full thirty yards past his opponent, off scratch himself, with his Cleveland Classic. On a slightly uphill 520 yard par five, he hit wedge for his second, and nobody smoking that much would ever be considered an "athlete". Even with my metal driver as a kid, never hit less than four or five iron in there. It used to host a European Tour event and never saw anyone near where he hit it. Yes, only one hole, just interesting.

My issue is that this would have been a far smaller proportion of the golfing populous capable of this kind of long-hitting. We might be saying that the longest might only have moved ten or so yards up the fairway, but, I think, the bulk of the distribution behind has moved up more, narrowing the gap for handicap golfers. With the big sweetspot, even the most ungainly fifteen handicap swing can middle one, like the blind pig finding that occasional truffle, and that probably wouldn't be far behind me. I think the amateur average would be higher overall as more people can make it up to "big hitter" territory where they would not have necessarily been with persimmon.

As I said earlier on, there used to be only a handful of people in the club who could make certain carries on the course, but now there are dozens of people who try as they could all make it with their Sunday best.

However, to Clark's point, it would seem that the distribution in the pro ranks is wider. This does not necessarily mean there are people that can hit it further - it could just mean that people hitting it that far have worked out a way to make a living out of playing tournament golf. Did there used to be more penal trouble? Are the wedges now better so they can play from the rough? Why is "bomb and gouge" a modern phenomenon?

Slightly worried that I am opening rifts in our otherwise happy-clappy hickory-classicy community.

At least we all seem to agree that banning anchoring of putters is ridiculous, but, given the length of the discussion it has prompted here, it would seem that this is an easy target compared to the bigger more complicated issues to do with equipment.

[oldschoolrocker]

If I may go back to my baseball past and substitute the pitcher for the long bomber. We have always had a percentage of hurlers that could throw some hard cheese and I don't think that percentage has gone up drastically over the last 100 years. From the rubber to the plate is still 60 feet 6 inches and the horsehide still weighs roughly 5 ounces. It wasn't that long ago that weight training was considered detrimental in the sport, so, even with the advances in technique and training the body can only produce so much velocity when one rocks and fires. i would think the same holds true with the golfing machine, the majority of the advances being due to equipment.

[jonnygrouville]

Out of interest, something along similar lines in relation to cricket....

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z9sd7hv"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z9sd7hv[/url]

Oddly touches on many of the things we have talked about here, only really that the ball hasn't changed a huge amount. Has become a more professional sport as opposed to a past-time, with the training, fitness, nutrition and everything that goes with it.

They have also brought the boundaries in to make it more exciting, infuriating the traditionalists as it is making a mockery of the record books when people would take two days to score 150 runs, instead of getting to 100 before tea on day one. Arguably, do courses with less trouble off the tee make it more exciting to watch for the regular punter? Probably, yes. Really tight fairways with penal rough and rubbish under the trees would leave us with lots of players dinking it 270 down the fairway. I challenge even the staunchest cricket fan to enjoy two days of forward defensives. Like watching slow-motion chess.

Interesting that the limited over versions of the game appear to have promoted more boundaries being hit as they are more confident with these strokes. Yes, they are more likely to get out, but are more aware of the risks and rewards, arguably similar to the long-hitter who can make up for the odd bad round with loose tee shots by blitzing it round in 63 the next day.

Again though, this is the professional game, but amateurs with the new bigger bats and shorter boundaries would be more likely to hit sixes as well, and, I think there will now be more people able to do so where this might only have been a handful of people in a club side previously.

You don't get many chances in cricket though. Would be like starting a four round tournament with only one ball! I have played four rounds with the same ball before, but not sure how I would have done if you would have told me on the first tee of round one that I was only allowed one...

[Blade Junkie]

Javelin is another example of a sport where they wound back the specs to reduce distances ... they had to ... to negate the risk of skewering someone on the running track ...

So it can be done - it just takes the right motivation and collective mindset, though this is probably something I am not sure exists with all the vested self-interest of the various parties in golf.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='jonnygrouville' timestamp='1440020612' post='12171988']
My issue is that this would have been a far smaller proportion of the golfing populous capable of this kind of long-hitting. We might be saying that the longest might only have moved ten or so yards up the fairway, but, I think, the bulk of the distribution behind has moved up more, narrowing the gap for handicap golfers. With the big sweetspot, even the most ungainly fifteen handicap swing can middle one, like the blind pig finding that occasional truffle, and that probably wouldn't be far behind me. I think the amateur average would be higher overall as more people can make it up to "big hitter" territory where they would not have necessarily been with persimmon.

As I said earlier on, there used to be only a handful of people in the club who could make certain carries on the course, but now there are dozens of people who try as they could all make it with their Sunday best.

However, to Clark's point, it would seem that the distribution in the pro ranks is wider. This does not necessarily mean there are people that can hit it further - it could just mean that people hitting it that far have worked out a way to make a living out of playing tournament golf. Did there used to be more penal trouble? Are the wedges now better so they can play from the rough? Why is "bomb and gouge" a modern phenomenon?

[/quote]

It seems to me that there are 2 contradictory arguments on the "things have gone too far" side of the debate.

One of those, call it the Tim Clark argument, is that only the longest pros have benefitted from technology. Or that the longest pros have benefitted disproportionately, and opened up a huge gap (50 yards according to Clark) in performance that more modestly endowed pros cannot compete with.

But the other argument, call it the Tiger Woods argument, is that technology has caused the pro field to bunch and that it's been harder than it should have been for TW (who had measurably more clubhead speed than just about anyone on tour at least until 2008) to distinguish himself.

Anyway, both arguments seem to be regularly brought out to justify the same conclusion. I don't see how they can both be right. Is there a way to reconcile these?

[oldschoolrocker]

One thing for certain, whether we agree with the advances and the direction the game is going, WE, are having a round table discussion about it, FROM, all corners of the GLOBE. Something that would have been impossible without the forward push of TECHNOLOGY.
My point, in this ever revolving world in which we live all aspects of our lives are touched by wheels of progress. Evolve, morph, or become extinct.
We are dinosaurs gentleman, and KM,
So I say with my morning cup of java raised,
"To us, and those like us, there's damn few left."

[scomac2002]

Some would refer to us as dinosaurs, but I prefer to think of it as reasoned in our decision making. We have the benefit of time, to sit back, observe and reflect on the world around us. We get to see the good, the bad and the ugly for what it is. When you are younger, the demands of job, family and trying to fit that solitary round a week into your schedule doesn't afford you the time to take it all in. We are all in such a rush. Some would say a rush to go nowhere; on the giant treadmill of modern society.

[jonnygrouville]

Too bloody right. With a three year old and a six month old, I don't get a round a week! But I really appreciate the odd nine holes when I can manage it, spend most of my commute thinking about golf and really appreciate my amateur renovation attempts after I get back from work, get kids to bed, do another couple of hours work and have half an hour drinking tea in the garage, sanding down old persimmon, before I get into bed for five and a half hours.

If I had modern clubs, what would I sand?! I'd be going to work with clean hands and would only be buying DIY essentials from the DIY store, as opposed to wondering whether they have any new colours of wood-stain in stock, and what an old M43 would look like in rosewood.

Nonetheless, do still wonder about the modern game, otherwise I wouldn't have started this whole discussion. Whilst our respective boats might be floating on the same patch of water, we know we are moored in a small, calm harbour, and the equipment tempest is whipping up a storm for the rest of the golfing world.

[Kirasdad]

[quote name='jonnygrouville' timestamp='1440020612' post='12171988']


Slightly worried that I am opening rifts in our otherwise happy-clappy hickory-classicy community.


[/quote]

An honorable sentiment, but speaking only for myself, I love a robust discussion (and besides, I agree with you.)

Put this in the "what if" file. I read somewhere that Bobby Jones ss with Jeanie Deans was 113 mph. I have no idea how this was determined, timed by Barney Oldfield driving by...I don't know. Anyway, let's say this is true, and one can posit that it had to be something in that range because his driver was a hickory at 8 degrees. I don't know about you gents, but I would hit an 8 degree hickory driver underground. So you give Jones a modern TaylorMade tweaked to his specs, with a Pro V1...well, RTJ would be out there in Bubba, Gary Woodland territory. So, we can presume it's not the Native American exactly, it's the arrow, and how many dimples on the rock in his sling. I know this is a tortured metaphor, but it will have to do.

Food for thought.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='Kirasdad' timestamp='1440192541' post='12185178']
[quote name='jonnygrouville' timestamp='1440020612' post='12171988']
Slightly worried that I am opening rifts in our otherwise happy-clappy hickory-classicy community.


[/quote]

An honorable sentiment, but speaking only for myself, I love a robust discussion (and besides, I agree with you.)

Put this in the "what if" file. I read somewhere that Bobby Jones ss with Jeanie Deans was 113 mph. I have no idea how this was determined, timed by Barney Oldfield driving by...I don't know. Anyway, let's say this is true, and one can posit that it had to be something in that range because his driver was a hickory at 8 degrees. I don't know about you gents, but I would hit an 8 degree hickory driver underground. So you give Jones a modern TaylorMade tweaked to his specs, with a Pro V1...well, RTJ would be out there in Bubba, Gary Woodland territory. So, we can presume it's not the Native American exactly, it's the arrow, and how many dimples on the rock in his sling. I know this is a tortured metaphor, but it will have to do.

Food for thought.
[/quote]

I believe that's accurate about Jones' speed. His swing was captured in a stroboscopic photograph and analysed by a physicist or engineer (I think the author's name was Williams, but don't quote me) for an academic paper. Completely agree that 113mph with hickory, and in one of those collars, is one of the more outlandish stats in the game - but I also believe that Jones was one of the longest hitters of his day. Amazing how often that's been true of the best golfers.

[Oldplayer]

Not sure a hickory shaft would be stable enough to produce anything like consistent strikes at 113mph. No expert of course but didn't the transition and downswing have to be very smooth with hickory?

[Kirasdad]

That is somewhat exaggerated IMO. I have been playing hickory for over five years now and I have tried all sorts of hickory clubs and you can find shafts that are really stiff, xx that would handle tons of speed. I am also convinced, having experimented a good bit, that a golf swing is a golf swing. I don't think my swing has had to change in the slightest to play hickory effectively. I have shot in the 70's with these things using the same swing I have always used. Is there a little more patience in the transition? Maybe, but nothing dramatic. These clubs when properly set up for your move are not delicate little fly rods. The trick is finding a set of clubs that feel and flex the same. That's with authentics, of course. Tad could set you up nicely in as long as the postman takes to get them to your door.

I have also seen, with my own eyeballs, Ben H give it a rip. he may not be 113, but he's up there.

[HoldenCornfield]

[quote name='Kirasdad' timestamp='1440255535' post='12188826']

I have also seen, with my own eyeballs, Ben H give it a rip. he may not be 113, but he's up there.
[/quote]

Great point, if hollabachgt is reading this, have you ever checked your driver SS with your hickory driver vs modern? That would be very interesting to know.

[stevemcgee99]

I've just been burned by outdoor retailers promising me something, and I worked at a company for a while. At one point I weighed a type of equipment from a large variety of manufacturers, and my conclusion was that all of them were rounding their measurements to the 'lower real limit' in ounces, then converting to grams. That was the only explanation for how much and how consistently they all lied.

I've been soaking wet in goretex. Froze my butt off in synthetic sleeping bags, and even 15 degree down bags in a [i]hotel room![/i]

So the idea that cavity back this, tungsten (weightless) weight that, fiber in your diet shafts, etc. will give you 1 MORE YARD makes me laugh.