When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[Uhit]

This argument likely has come up with every generation of advancement i.e. Hickory to steel to graphite, etc. or persimmon to steel to you get the point. After winning the Sentry, DJ notably remarked how hard it was to hit it offline with the M4 and the twist face. Yes, DJ is a freak and the player the most important variable. However, at what point should the equipment forgiveness stop correcting deficiencies of the player in order to get a true test of the best players. This is the case that in previous generations, the equipment didn't help as much and only the best ball strikers won the majority of times. Today, do we know the best players? Are some guys only decent ball strikers but are being saved by equipment to compete with great ball strikers? Is that how tournament golf should be? If so, how far does it go?

 

Sounds like you need to spend some time watching tour players today at a typical tour event hit balls, practice their wedge play and practice putting. Spend 4-5 hrs some day at a tour event on the range and practice areas. Jump around and watch players who are in the top 50, 2nd 50, 3rd 50 and if you have been around the game enough you can start to see who's got it that week and who doesn't. Then find a state amateur tournament that draws all the best players in your state and go do the same thing. Again if you have a lot of experience watching shot making, you'll soon see the gap between the best players in a state and the tour players. With tour players you really have to look hard to see the difference between what they call a good shot vs a bad shot. With scratch ams you can more easily see the differences because they are greater. If we compared these guys by handicaps, you'd be seeing the difference between tour players at an average of +4, +5, or even better compared to good ams at scratch.

 

And we're just talking ball striking, not putting. I think most here with decent tournament experience recognize the fact that while it is possible for a pro to win when he ranks 50th or worse for the week in putting, it does not happen all that much. Those who win out there typically putt well that week.

 

There are no "bad players" with PGA Tour cards. As long as the clubs would be fit to the likes and feel preferences of each player for the key fitting elements, these guys out there could play with clubheads of 20-30 yrs ago and still hit the ball as well when watching them hit shots. Sure if they were playing wooden woods, their distance would drop by 3-4%, but if their forged irons had the same lofts as they play today, you'd still be amazed at how good they hit it.

 

After having designed clubs and shafts for 30+ yrs and worked designing and fitting clubs for some tour players over those years, I can tell you that not counting the ball and speaking only from the clubs' standpoint, off center hit forgiveness of the head is the main area that modern club design has given these guys an equipment boost. And yet even with that look at how many of these guys play low MOI, unforgiving irons and win or rank in the top 50. The many that play cavity back higher MOI irons out there just do not have any real advantage at their level of skill. Because how often do they hit it that far off center?

 

Geez I remember having Scott Verplank on a launch monitor one day in the late 90s when he was testing a new set of irons I had finished for him and his swing path and face angle outputs started to catch my eye. Shot after shot he was only varying these elements by a few TENTHS of a degree ! If you are a low single digit to scratch player go hit 50 shots and watch your swing to swing variation of path and face angle. I bet you will see some swings vary by a full degree and often more than that. Years ago the TrackMan people told me that day in and day out, the tour players who were placing higher in each event hardly ever had a high low range in path and face angle of a full degree.

 

That right there is the real reason the guys on tour earn the tag line the PGA Tour uses in their marketing - "these guys are GOOD". Tour players who stay on tour for 5-10 yrs or more are just plain more CONSISTENT from swing to swing.

 

And if you think shafts are so much "better" today, I can assure you that many of the bend profiles of the players' fave shafts of the past 5 yrs on tour are uncannily similar to the BPs of the many of the fave shafts of 10-15 yrs ago. Many, like in the iron shafts, are exactly the same today as 15 yrs ago. What you have in today's shafts are much wider ranges of choice for FITTING purposes in weight and in bend profile so players can more fine tune their preferred sense of feel for their shafts. But then too, players who last 5, 10, 15 yrs or more out there end up playing with all sorts of different clubs and shafts over their career.

 

Much of that really does fall into the categories of 1) they just happen to try something and develop an instant like for it, feel wise or looks wise or shot shape wise; 2) they are in a slump and a different club or shaft (or fitting spec) triggers better results from which they develop the new confidence to pull out of the slump; 3) the company paying them to play their clubs "urges" them to use their next club model offering.

 

In the end with the elite players, so much of their equipment preferences come about from a slight increase in consistency which breeds confidence which takes over to put them in the hunt more often. Equipment wise it is possible that if a player finds a better FIT of equipment to his swing/likes/feel preference, it can make the difference between getting on tour or keeping a card. But I seriously doubt that a club TECHNOLOGY is going to make the difference between getting on tour or staying on tour.

 

Because at the end of the day, you either have the fine motor control and athletic capability coupled with the right swing technique for their neuro-muscular make up to be consistent enough with the swing to make it out there or you do not.

 

Thanks for the elaborate comment.

[Bye]

This argument likely has come up with every generation of advancement i.e. Hickory to steel to graphite, etc. or persimmon to steel to you get the point. After winning the Sentry, DJ notably remarked how hard it was to hit it offline with the M4 and the twist face. Yes, DJ is a freak and the player the most important variable. However, at what point should the equipment forgiveness stop correcting deficiencies of the player in order to get a true test of the best players. This is the case that in previous generations, the equipment didn't help as much and only the best ball strikers won the majority of times. Today, do we know the best players? Are some guys only decent ball strikers but are being saved by equipment to compete with great ball strikers? Is that how tournament golf should be? If so, how far does it go?

 

Sounds like you need to spend some time watching tour players today at a typical tour event hit balls, practice their wedge play and practice putting. Spend 4-5 hrs some day at a tour event on the range and practice areas. Jump around and watch players who are in the top 50, 2nd 50, 3rd 50 and if you have been around the game enough you can start to see who's got it that week and who doesn't. Then find a state amateur tournament that draws all the best players in your state and go do the same thing. Again if you have a lot of experience watching shot making, you'll soon see the gap between the best players in a state and the tour players. With tour players you really have to look hard to see the difference between what they call a good shot vs a bad shot. With scratch ams you can more easily see the differences because they are greater. If we compared these guys by handicaps, you'd be seeing the difference between tour players at an average of +4, +5, or even better compared to good ams at scratch.

 

And we're just talking ball striking, not putting. I think most here with decent tournament experience recognize the fact that while it is possible for a pro to win when he ranks 50th or worse for the week in putting, it does not happen all that much. Those who win out there typically putt well that week.

 

There are no "bad players" with PGA Tour cards. As long as the clubs would be fit to the likes and feel preferences of each player for the key fitting elements, these guys out there could play with clubheads of 20-30 yrs ago and still hit the ball as well when watching them hit shots. Sure if they were playing wooden woods, their distance would drop by 3-4%, but if their forged irons had the same lofts as they play today, you'd still be amazed at how good they hit it.

 

After having designed clubs and shafts for 30+ yrs and worked designing and fitting clubs for some tour players over those years, I can tell you that not counting the ball and speaking only from the clubs' standpoint, off center hit forgiveness of the head is the main area that modern club design has given these guys an equipment boost. And yet even with that look at how many of these guys play low MOI, unforgiving irons and win or rank in the top 50. The many that play cavity back higher MOI irons out there just do not have any real advantage at their level of skill. Because how often do they hit it that far off center?

 

Geez I remember having Scott Verplank on a launch monitor one day in the late 90s when he was testing a new set of irons I had finished for him and his swing path and face angle outputs started to catch my eye. Shot after shot he was only varying these elements by a few TENTHS of a degree ! If you are a low single digit to scratch player go hit 50 shots and watch your swing to swing variation of path and face angle. I bet you will see some swings vary by a full degree and often more than that. Years ago the TrackMan people told me that day in and day out, the tour players who were placing higher in each event hardly ever had a high low range in path and face angle of a full degree.

 

That right there is the real reason the guys on tour earn the tag line the PGA Tour uses in their marketing - "these guys are GOOD". Tour players who stay on tour for 5-10 yrs or more are just plain more CONSISTENT from swing to swing.

 

And if you think shafts are so much "better" today, I can assure you that many of the bend profiles of the players' fave shafts of the past 5 yrs on tour are uncannily similar to the BPs of the many of the fave shafts of 10-15 yrs ago. Many, like in the iron shafts, are exactly the same today as 15 yrs ago. What you have in today's shafts are much wider ranges of choice for FITTING purposes in weight and in bend profile so players can more fine tune their preferred sense of feel for their shafts. But then too, players who last 5, 10, 15 yrs or more out there end up playing with all sorts of different clubs and shafts over their career.

 

Much of that really does fall into the categories of 1) they just happen to try something and develop an instant like for it, feel wise or looks wise or shot shape wise; 2) they are in a slump and a different club or shaft (or fitting spec) triggers better results from which they develop the new confidence to pull out of the slump; 3) the company paying them to play their clubs "urges" them to use their next club model offering.

 

In the end with the elite players, so much of their equipment preferences come about from a slight increase in consistency which breeds confidence which takes over to put them in the hunt more often. Equipment wise it is possible that if a player finds a better FIT of equipment to his swing/likes/feel preference, it can make the difference between getting on tour or keeping a card. But I seriously doubt that a club TECHNOLOGY is going to make the difference between getting on tour or staying on tour.

 

Because at the end of the day, you either have the fine motor control and athletic capability coupled with the right swing technique for their neuro-muscular make up to be consistent enough with the swing to make it out there or you do not.

 

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

[TomWishon]

 

 

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

[Bye]

 

 

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

 

Thanks Tom, yes this does help.

 

The distance debate will rage on. Everyone has their own perspective and views on this but it is useful to have a better understanding on the subject.

 

I was not aware that so much could be done with the old drivers. I guess we are lucky now that this adaptability and knowledge is not just available to the tour players.

 

With Titleist blaming everything but the ball for the distance gains, Jack Niclaus saying dial back the ball and course designers like Pete Dye saying mowers are to blame it's hard to understand the causes. In truth it's probably a combination of many things like better coaching, trackman, force plates etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

Chris.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TomWishon]

 

Thanks Tom, yes this does help.

 

The distance debate will rage on. Everyone has their own perspective and views on this but it is useful to have a better understanding on the subject.

 

I was not aware that so much could be done with the old drivers. I guess we are lucky now that this adaptability and knowledge is not just available to the tour players.

 

With Titleist blaming everything but the ball for the distance gains, Jack Niclaus saying dial back the ball and course designers like Pete Dye saying mowers are to blame it's hard to understand the causes. In truth it's probably a combination of many things like better coaching, trackman, force plates etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

Chris.

 

Shoot, the biggest thing that has contributed to how far these guys hit it today is plain and simple, their clubhead speed. These guys are athletes now. Today the average driver clubhead speed on tour is 113-114 mph with some able to easily swing the driver at 120+. 30 yrs ago the average driver speed on tour was 105mph. With the driver for each 1mph you increase clubhead speed, you get another 2.8 yds of carry distance. That means a 113 driver speed brings about +23 yds more in carry distance. 120mph vs 105mph means 42 more yards of carry.

 

Then add on how they mow fairways on tour today to not more than 1/2" vs how it was 30 yrs ago and you can add even more for an increase in roll after landing.

 

Last on the list comes the advent of titanium drivers in the early 90s with their higher COR than the old stainless metal woods or persimmon woods of the early to late 80s. Persimmon and the old stainless driver heads both have a COR around 0.77-0.78. Compare that to a 0.83 COR for a player with a 113 mph driver speed and its worth +11 yards of carry distance.

 

Then for approach shots, you have the simple fact that today's irons that the tour players use have about 4* less loft per the same iron number than 30 yrs ago. And that's only for those pros who use muscleback blade forgings. For the ones who use cast cavity backs, it can be about 5-6* less loft today per the same iron number. So that explains a big part of why we all are amazed to hear these guys hitting a 7 iron from 180 or more. The rest of it again comes from the fact today's average 7 iron clubhead speed on tour is much higher at an average of 90mph. 30 yrs ago the avg 7-iron speed on tour was in the low to mid 80s. So again a higher clubhead speed from being better golf athletes is most of it for more iron distance today, but the shrinking loft trend of the big companies is the rest.

 

Now you understand how these guys play a 495 yd par-4 with a driver and 7 iron or less. Most of it is from the golfer and the way they groom fairways, not from the equipment.

 

But no one wants to seem to accept this, especially the USGA. They seem to want to "blame" the equipment designers.

 

If you're still interested in this, let me share some past history that is kind of interesting. Way back before 1900, the predominant ball of choice were balls molded from gutta percha, a type of rubber that comes from the Sapodila tree. A long golf course back then was in the order of 5800 yds.

 

In 1900, Coburn Haskell of the BF Goodrich company invented the wound center rubber core golf ball. Immediately the game's elite players back then gained 30-40 yds with this change in the ball. The USGA and R&A did nothing about this, probably because they just were not aware of the ramifications of such a significant change in the equipment.

 

Instantly the courses previously used for elite events were no longer the challenge they were in the gutty era. Some of these courses did build longer tees but mainly what happened was that when new courses were built, they were made to be 6700-6900 yds from the tips to accommodate the new ball. And players just got used to a long par 4 hole going from 375 to 450. But I'm sure at the time golfers must have thought with a tone of incredulity, "wow, how can we have a 450 yards par-4 ????"

 

Why's should it be any different today when we talk about the elite players and the courses they play for elite events? What's wrong with having 550 yd par-4's if the goal is to make these guys hit driver/long iron on a long par 4? Why's that any different in the thought process than back in 1900 when golfers had to adjust to the concept of a par-4 now would be 75 yds longer than they were used to?

 

But it seems that today it is just "not acceptable" to think about par-4's that would be 75 yds longer than what we have been used to - at least it is not acceptable with the USGA for some reason.

 

Sure there are different schools of thought about this. But for me with a long time in the game and its industry, reeling back the ball for the tour would be a big mistake and would take a whole lot away from this great game. The fact that we all play with the same equipment is part of the greatness of this game. To adjust for differences in our skills vs the tour players, we can play the forward tees.

 

To me the absolute greatest thing about we mortals vs the tour players is that on any day, any of us can hit one ore more shots that no tour player could ever hope to hit better even with their greater level of skill. If I make a 40 footer in a tournament, no tour player could do better on that same putt. If I hole a pitch shot from 60 yds under pressure, no tour player can hit that shot from the same place any better. If I knock a full 7 iron stiff to make birdie, they can't do any better on the same shot from the same place on the hole other than to hole it which they won't do very often. And so on.

 

No other sport or game can make that claim. In tennis, you'll never return Roger Federer's serve. In skiing you'll never make a turn like Ted Ligety can. In baseball you'll never be able to hit a pitch from CC Sabathia. And so on.

 

If you change the ball for the tour players, it won't be the same game we all play.

[mahonie]

 

Thanks Tom, yes this does help.

 

The distance debate will rage on. Everyone has their own perspective and views on this but it is useful to have a better understanding on the subject.

 

I was not aware that so much could be done with the old drivers. I guess we are lucky now that this adaptability and knowledge is not just available to the tour players.

 

With Titleist blaming everything but the ball for the distance gains, Jack Niclaus saying dial back the ball and course designers like Pete Dye saying mowers are to blame it's hard to understand the causes. In truth it's probably a combination of many things like better coaching, trackman, force plates etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

Chris.

 

Shoot, the biggest thing that has contributed to how far these guys hit it today is plain and simple, their clubhead speed. These guys are athletes now. Today the average driver clubhead speed on tour is 113-114 mph with some able to easily swing the driver at 120+. 30 yrs ago the average driver speed on tour was 105mph. With the driver for each 1mph you increase clubhead speed, you get another 2.8 yds of carry distance. That means a 113 driver speed brings about +23 yds more in carry distance. 120mph vs 105mph means 42 more yards of carry.

 

Then add on how they mow fairways on tour today to not more than 1/2" vs how it was 30 yrs ago and you can add even more for an increase in roll after landing.

 

Last on the list comes the advent of titanium drivers in the early 90s with their higher COR than the old stainless metal woods or persimmon woods of the early to late 80s. Persimmon and the old stainless driver heads both have a COR around 0.77-0.78. Compare that to a 0.83 COR for a player with a 113 mph driver speed and its worth +11 yards of carry distance.

 

Then for approach shots, you have the simple fact that today's irons that the tour players use have about 4* less loft per the same iron number than 30 yrs ago. And that's only for those pros who use muscleback blade forgings. For the ones who use cast cavity backs, it can be about 5-6* less loft today per the same iron number. So that explains a big part of why we all are amazed to hear these guys hitting a 7 iron from 180 or more. The rest of it again comes from the fact today's average 7 iron clubhead speed on tour is much higher at an average of 90mph. 30 yrs ago the avg 7-iron speed on tour was in the low to mid 80s. So again a higher clubhead speed from being better golf athletes is most of it for more iron distance today, but the shrinking loft trend of the big companies is the rest.

 

Now you understand how these guys play a 495 yd par-4 with a driver and 7 iron or less. Most of it is from the golfer and the way they groom fairways, not from the equipment.

 

But no one wants to seem to accept this, especially the USGA. They seem to want to "blame" the equipment designers.

 

If you're still interested in this, let me share some past history that is kind of interesting. Way back before 1900, the predominant ball of choice were balls molded from gutta percha, a type of rubber that comes from the Sapodila tree. A long golf course back then was in the order of 5800 yds.

 

In 1900, Coburn Haskell of the BF Goodrich company invented the wound center rubber core golf ball. Immediately the game's elite players back then gained 30-40 yds with this change in the ball. The USGA and R&A did nothing about this, probably because they just were not aware of the ramifications of such a significant change in the equipment.

 

Instantly the courses previously used for elite events were no longer the challenge they were in the gutty era. Some of these courses did build longer tees but mainly what happened was that when new courses were built, they were made to be 6700-6900 yds from the tips to accommodate the new ball. And players just got used to a long par 4 hole going from 375 to 450. But I'm sure at the time golfers must have thought with a tone of incredulity, "wow, how can we have a 450 yards par-4 ????"

 

Why's should it be any different today when we talk about the elite players and the courses they play for elite events? What's wrong with having 550 yd par-4's if the goal is to make these guys hit driver/long iron on a long par 4? Why's that any different in the thought process than back in 1900 when golfers had to adjust to the concept of a par-4 now would be 75 yds longer than they were used to?

 

But it seems that today it is just "not acceptable" to think about par-4's that would be 75 yds longer than what we have been used to - at least it is not acceptable with the USGA for some reason.

 

Sure there are different schools of thought about this. But for me with a long time in the game and its industry, reeling back the ball for the tour would be a big mistake and would take a whole lot away from this great game. The fact that we all play with the same equipment is part of the greatness of this game. To adjust for differences in our skills vs the tour players, we can play the forward tees.

 

To me the absolute greatest thing about we mortals vs the tour players is that on any day, any of us can hit one ore more shots that no tour player could ever hope to hit better even with their greater level of skill. If I make a 40 footer in a tournament, no tour player could do better on that same putt. If I hole a pitch shot from 60 yds under pressure, no tour player can hit that shot from the same place any better. If I knock a full 7 iron stiff to make birdie, they can't do any better on the same shot from the same place on the hole other than to hole it which they won't do very often. And so on.

 

No other sport or game can make that claim. In tennis, you'll never return Roger Federer's serve. In skiing you'll never make a turn like Ted Ligety can. In baseball you'll never be able to hit a pitch from CC Sabathia. And so on.

 

If you change the ball for the tour players, it won't be the same game we all play.

 

Tom, great points as usual. One thing I would say regarding the ball is that when I started playing in the early 1980s, the Pros didn’t play the same balls as most recreational players. The pros and top amateurs played balata because they were skilled ballstrikers (and they got them for free!) and we all played cheaper, surlyn covered balls that went further, spun less all round, lasted longer and were affordable. With balata there was a trade off - they were a lot easier to control around the green, but a lot harder to control off the tee. The modern ball, comparatively, is having your cake and eating it.

 

I do think that some of the top pros nowadays do not have to be as skilled at striking the ball with the longer clubs as there is a larger margin for error with both the clubs and ball - Short game not so much because that is much more about feel anyway.

[bladehunter]

 

 

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

 

 

Thanks mr Tom .. as always a great explanatiOn. If I’m following correctly youre explaining what I’ve been saying I’m seeing . That if they wanted to pull anything back for high level players it would be the Driver size and/or designs and not really the ball.

 

But I know this would accordion into other things. Like. 290 yard driving irons. At some level it would all run together at the top.

 

With that being said do you see drives continuing to grow in length ? Will we see regular 400 plus yard drives soon ?

[Nard_S]

Mahonie, you're spot on about the defacto bifurcation that existed 25-30 years ago.

 

The big differential between years ago and today is not the distance but the rail like quality of the ball. Wind effect on it is greatly diminished because it is more aerodynamic, side spin is diminished because it launches with lower spin yet final spin ends up higher.. Coupled with big headed drivers, it's a much straighter game. Good for duffer bad for spectating the PGA, bad for Amen Corner, bad for The Open.

 

We can build longer courses that take all this in account, Pete Dye does it, but we've hit a wall where pillars of the game's history are becoming irrelevant and it's not just about power and distance. Last time the 12th at Augusta mattered or was truly scary was 15 years ago. Why? The wind and the havoc it could descend on the old ball. So today's guy hit harder but they do not have to contend with the same variables that once were common in every prior era. How is that progress or adds interest to the game?

 

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

[storm319]

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

 

Or they could have moved the tee up and changed it to a par 4 for Masters week. Traditionalists would have rioted but would that fallout for a few years cost more than $20 mil?

[pinestreetgolf]

Mahonie, you're spot on about the defacto bifurcation that existed 25-30 years ago.

 

The big differential between years ago and today is not the distance but the rail like quality of the ball. Wind effect on it is greatly diminished because it is more aerodynamic, side spin is diminished because it launches with lower spin yet final spin ends up higher.. Coupled with big headed drivers, it's a much straighter game. Good for duffer bad for spectating the PGA, bad for Amen Corner, bad for The Open.

 

We can build longer courses that take all this in account, Pete Dye does it, but we've hit a wall where pillars of the game's history are becoming irrelevant and it's not just about power and distance. Last time the 12th at Augusta mattered or was truly scary was 15 years ago. Why? The wind and the havoc it could descend on the old ball. So today's guy hit harder but they do not have to contend with the same variables that once were common in every prior era. How is that progress or adds interest to the game?

 

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

 

Tom answered this in his earlier post I think. The "pillars of the game" in 1900 were made obsolete and courses like Augusta were built. Augusta is being made obsolete and somewhere a bulldozer just cleared the first bit of rock for what someone in 2055 will call a pillar of the game.

 

It is ever-changing. The second the game stops evolving and clings too tightly to history is when it starts to die. There were "pillars of the game" in 1900 that are ghosts today and today's pillars will be tomorrow's ghosts.

 

It's like the poem. My name is ozymandius, king of kings.

[storm319]

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

 

 

Thanks mr Tom .. as always a great explanatiOn. If I'm following correctly youre explaining what I've been saying I'm seeing . That if they wanted to pull anything back for high level players it would be the Driver size and/or designs and not really the ball.

 

But I know this would accordion into other things. Like. 290 yard driving irons. At some level it would all run together at the top.

 

With that being said do you see drives continuing to grow in length ? Will we see regular 400 plus yard drives soon ?

 

When you have several players on tour carrying steel 3-woods that are under 200cc over 300 yards, do you really think that a reduction in max driver size will make a difference? Not to mention the environmental impact of deeming just about every driver produced in the past 15 years illegal? I don't see the USGA's stance on bifurcation changing (even though they introduced a 14 year temporary bifurcation with the groove rollback), so any rollback will be across the board. The demand for non-conforming equipment is incredibly low (to echo Tom's sentiment, most people want to play as close to the same game as the pros regardless of how unrealistic that is), so the major OEMs would fall in line with producing new product under the new regulation. Any rollback of clubs or balls would likely have a much greater negative impact on the amateur game as well as the environment than it would the elite and all due to the misguided perception that equipment is the only reason for distance gains.

[Bad9]

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

 

 

Thanks mr Tom .. as always a great explanatiOn. If I’m following correctly youre explaining what I’ve been saying I’m seeing . That if they wanted to pull anything back for high level players it would be the Driver size and/or designs and not really the ball.

 

But I know this would accordion into other things. Like. 290 yard driving irons. At some level it would all run together at the top.

 

With that being said do you see drives continuing to grow in length ? Will we see regular 400 plus yard drives soon ?

 

Tom was quite clear in his paragraph of post 425. “Shoot, the biggest thing that has contributed to how far these guys hit it today is plain and simple, their clubhead speed. These guys are athletes now. Today the average driver clubhead speed on tour is 113-114 mph with some able to easily swing the driver at 120+. 30 yrs ago the average driver speed on tour was 105mph. With the driver for each 1mph you increase clubhead speed, you get another 2.8 yds of carry distance. That means a 113 driver speed brings about +23 yds more in carry distance. 120mph vs 105mph means 42 more yards of carry. “

[bladehunter]

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

 

 

Thanks mr Tom .. as always a great explanatiOn. If I’m following correctly youre explaining what I’ve been saying I’m seeing . That if they wanted to pull anything back for high level players it would be the Driver size and/or designs and not really the ball.

 

But I know this would accordion into other things. Like. 290 yard driving irons. At some level it would all run together at the top.

 

With that being said do you see drives continuing to grow in length ? Will we see regular 400 plus yard drives soon ?

 

Tom was quite clear in his paragraph of post 425. “Shoot, the biggest thing that has contributed to how far these guys hit it today is plain and simple, their clubhead speed. These guys are athletes now. Today the average driver clubhead speed on tour is 113-114 mph with some able to easily swing the driver at 120+. 30 yrs ago the average driver speed on tour was 105mph. With the driver for each 1mph you increase clubhead speed, you get another 2.8 yds of carry distance. That means a 113 driver speed brings about +23 yds more in carry distance. 120mph vs 105mph means 42 more yards of carry. “

 

 

I see nothing in that paragraph that answers the question I asked. Unless you are assuming that distance is capped and tech will no longer evolve any further. If that’s the case it isn’t stated here.

 

Not to mention the other half of the equation. Speed. As in are we expecting sweet spot to increase to the point that 140 mph guys can exist on tour ?

[bladehunter]

I am a bit surprised when you say that off centre hits are the main boost. Have the higher launching and lower spinning drivers not made as big an impact?

 

And is finding a better fit not the same as getting a new driver with some new tech that knocks 1000 rpm off the ball and raises their launch by a couple of degrees. Giving a really good player 10-15 further off the tee might be the difference for some guys. But yes if you can't putt then forget it.

 

The real questions are has distance become too important in the game and are players at all levels hitting the ball too far.

 

Prior to the era of moving weights on the sole of a driver, players fine tuned their vertical launch angle by using different loft heads or occasionally from a change in the bend profile of the shaft. But if the change in bend profile required to bring about the desired change in vertical launch also meant the shaft ended up feeling too soft or too stiff, then that was not an option for changing vert launch. Changing bend profile on a shaft to achieve a different launch angle does its thing by how much the player's release and speed makes the shaft bend forward at the moment of impact TO CHANGE THE LOFT AT IMPACT.

 

With a moving weight from back to front, all they are doing is making the same shaft bend forward more or less to change the loft of the head at the moment of impact. Moving weight back moves the CG a little back which slightly increases the amount of forward shaft bending. Moving weight forward moves the CG forward a bit and that slightly decreases forward bending on the shaft. But you can do the same if you have heads in fractions of a degree of loft for them to try WITH THE SAME SHAFT THEY LIKE AND ARE USED TO with no change in the bending feel of the shaft.

 

And prior to the era of moving weights on the sole, players fine tuned their horizontal launch angle by using heads with slightly different FACE ANGLES. Moving a weight from heel to toe changes horizontal launch angle by moving the CG very slightly toward the heel or toe side of the center of the face. Thus when the player hits the shot on center, it causes the head to rotate a little to create a slight gear effect that causes the draw or fade adjustment/correction they desire for their normal swing path and face angle delivery of the clubhead.

 

Thus the moving weights can make it easier to do these things without switching heads. But the point is, it was eminently possible to achieve the same exact shotmaking results with changes in loft, or shaft or face angle before. And there can be some cases where the effect of the moving weight forward or back on the bending of the shaft now makes the player not like the bending feel of the shaft. So that too could require some pain in the neck changes of the shaft. So at the end of the day, it's kind of a 6 of one, half doz of the other when it comes to saying whether moving weights are better than changing lofts for vertical launch angle tuning.

 

With the very high MOI driver heads coupled with very well engineered variable thickness faces, this brings about a level of off center hit forgiveness never achieved before in head design. For those playing cavity back irons, the higher MOI brings about an improvement on a less than perfect shot that they would not have if they used a head with a much lower MOI. In other words, there is a substitute for moving weights to get the same result, but when it comes to off center hits there is no substitute for MOI and a variable thickness face to get best results.

 

So in the past if the player happened to hit a shot 1/2" off center to a green with water hugging the front edge, it cost him a penalty stroke. Today he could hit the same shot and get the ball on the green. That's something that does not exist anywhere other than with a higher MOI and or a variable thickness face.

 

Hence the reason for my statement. Hope this helps but I love the debate on things like this so if there are other questions or comments, I welcome them.

 

 

Thanks mr Tom .. as always a great explanatiOn. If I'm following correctly youre explaining what I've been saying I'm seeing . That if they wanted to pull anything back for high level players it would be the Driver size and/or designs and not really the ball.

 

But I know this would accordion into other things. Like. 290 yard driving irons. At some level it would all run together at the top.

 

With that being said do you see drives continuing to grow in length ? Will we see regular 400 plus yard drives soon ?

 

When you have several players on tour carrying steel 3-woods that are under 200cc over 300 yards, do you really think that a reduction in max driver size will make a difference? Not to mention the environmental impact of deeming just about every driver produced in the past 15 years illegal? I don't see the USGA's stance on bifurcation changing (even though they introduced a 14 year temporary bifurcation with the groove rollback), so any rollback will be across the board. The demand for non-conforming equipment is incredibly low (to echo Tom's sentiment, most people want to play as close to the same game as the pros regardless of how unrealistic that is), so the major OEMs would fall in line with producing new product under the new regulation. Any rollback of clubs or balls would likely have a much greater negative impact on the amateur game as well as the environment than it would the elite and all due to the misguided perception that equipment is the only reason for distance gains.

 

 

pretty sure my next to last line covered that... i already conceded that very point... it would take a roll back clear past hybrids... isnt going to happen.. i know.

[Nard_S]

Mahonie, you're spot on about the defacto bifurcation that existed 25-30 years ago.

 

The big differential between years ago and today is not the distance but the rail like quality of the ball. Wind effect on it is greatly diminished because it is more aerodynamic, side spin is diminished because it launches with lower spin yet final spin ends up higher.. Coupled with big headed drivers, it's a much straighter game. Good for duffer bad for spectating the PGA, bad for Amen Corner, bad for The Open.

 

We can build longer courses that take all this in account, Pete Dye does it, but we've hit a wall where pillars of the game's history are becoming irrelevant and it's not just about power and distance. Last time the 12th at Augusta mattered or was truly scary was 15 years ago. Why? The wind and the havoc it could descend on the old ball. So today's guy hit harder but they do not have to contend with the same variables that once were common in every prior era. How is that progress or adds interest to the game?

 

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

 

Tom answered this in his earlier post I think. The "pillars of the game" in 1900 were made obsolete and courses like Augusta were built. Augusta is being made obsolete and somewhere a bulldozer just cleared the first bit of rock for what someone in 2055 will call a pillar of the game.

 

It is ever-changing. The second the game stops evolving and clings too tightly to history is when it starts to die. There were "pillars of the game" in 1900 that are ghosts today and today's pillars will be tomorrow's ghosts.

 

It's like the poem. My name is ozymandius, king of kings.

 

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

Still what is not answered is how is it that we've accepted the neutering of elements in the manner that has been done. Wind as a hazard has been significantly tamed and it does not make for better golf. It has dumbed down the game and its taken a lot of drama out of Pro events. Not my idea of evolution.

[radiman]

Mahonie, you're spot on about the defacto bifurcation that existed 25-30 years ago.

 

The big differential between years ago and today is not the distance but the rail like quality of the ball. Wind effect on it is greatly diminished because it is more aerodynamic, side spin is diminished because it launches with lower spin yet final spin ends up higher.. Coupled with big headed drivers, it's a much straighter game. Good for duffer bad for spectating the PGA, bad for Amen Corner, bad for The Open.

 

We can build longer courses that take all this in account, Pete Dye does it, but we've hit a wall where pillars of the game's history are becoming irrelevant and it's not just about power and distance. Last time the 12th at Augusta mattered or was truly scary was 15 years ago. Why? The wind and the havoc it could descend on the old ball. So today's guy hit harder but they do not have to contend with the same variables that once were common in every prior era. How is that progress or adds interest to the game?

 

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

 

Tom answered this in his earlier post I think. The "pillars of the game" in 1900 were made obsolete and courses like Augusta were built. Augusta is being made obsolete and somewhere a bulldozer just cleared the first bit of rock for what someone in 2055 will call a pillar of the game.

 

It is ever-changing. The second the game stops evolving and clings too tightly to history is when it starts to die. There were "pillars of the game" in 1900 that are ghosts today and today's pillars will be tomorrow's ghosts.

 

It's like the poem. My name is ozymandius, king of kings.

 

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

Still what is not answered is how is it that we've accepted the neutering of elements in the manner that has been done. Wind as a hazard has been significantly tamed and it does not make for better golf. It has dumbed down the game and its taken a lot of drama out of Pro events. Not my idea of evolution.

 

You say we as if everyone else has the same expectations of how golf at the pro and amateur level should be. I for one don't really have an issue with the game in the state it's currently in.

 

As mentioned in an earlier post. If pro equipment gets restricted, it's going to trickle down to the amateur level. We want to play the same game. If they roll back equipment to reign in pro golf, they risk losing a lot of amateur players over time. With less golfers, there's less interest in pro golf, with less interest in pro golf, the money starts to dry up. They have limits in place, there really isn't much more to squeeze out in terms of performance. Trying to capture the magic of golf from 2-3 decades ago by rolling back equipment would be a mistake. At least in my opinion. Just as you're entitled to yours.

[pinestreetgolf]

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

In 100 years nobody will remember where Spieth won.

[BenHoganSlam1953]

I only care about two things - figuring out the best match of equipment (regardless of age) to myself and having the fastest clubbed speed I can control and keep the ball in play.

[rawdog]

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

In 100 years nobody will remember where Spieth won.

 

Cough, cough. Recency bias. Cough.

[Bye]

 

Thanks Tom, yes this does help.

 

The distance debate will rage on. Everyone has their own perspective and views on this but it is useful to have a better understanding on the subject.

 

I was not aware that so much could be done with the old drivers. I guess we are lucky now that this adaptability and knowledge is not just available to the tour players.

 

With Titleist blaming everything but the ball for the distance gains, Jack Niclaus saying dial back the ball and course designers like Pete Dye saying mowers are to blame it's hard to understand the causes. In truth it's probably a combination of many things like better coaching, trackman, force plates etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

Chris.

 

Shoot, the biggest thing that has contributed to how far these guys hit it today is plain and simple, their clubhead speed. These guys are athletes now. Today the average driver clubhead speed on tour is 113-114 mph with some able to easily swing the driver at 120+. 30 yrs ago the average driver speed on tour was 105mph. With the driver for each 1mph you increase clubhead speed, you get another 2.8 yds of carry distance. That means a 113 driver speed brings about +23 yds more in carry distance. 120mph vs 105mph means 42 more yards of carry.

 

Then add on how they mow fairways on tour today to not more than 1/2" vs how it was 30 yrs ago and you can add even more for an increase in roll after landing.

 

Last on the list comes the advent of titanium drivers in the early 90s with their higher COR than the old stainless metal woods or persimmon woods of the early to late 80s. Persimmon and the old stainless driver heads both have a COR around 0.77-0.78. Compare that to a 0.83 COR for a player with a 113 mph driver speed and its worth +11 yards of carry distance.

 

Then for approach shots, you have the simple fact that today's irons that the tour players use have about 4* less loft per the same iron number than 30 yrs ago. And that's only for those pros who use muscleback blade forgings. For the ones who use cast cavity backs, it can be about 5-6* less loft today per the same iron number. So that explains a big part of why we all are amazed to hear these guys hitting a 7 iron from 180 or more. The rest of it again comes from the fact today's average 7 iron clubhead speed on tour is much higher at an average of 90mph. 30 yrs ago the avg 7-iron speed on tour was in the low to mid 80s. So again a higher clubhead speed from being better golf athletes is most of it for more iron distance today, but the shrinking loft trend of the big companies is the rest.

 

Now you understand how these guys play a 495 yd par-4 with a driver and 7 iron or less. Most of it is from the golfer and the way they groom fairways, not from the equipment.

 

But no one wants to seem to accept this, especially the USGA. They seem to want to "blame" the equipment designers.

 

If you're still interested in this, let me share some past history that is kind of interesting. Way back before 1900, the predominant ball of choice were balls molded from gutta percha, a type of rubber that comes from the Sapodila tree. A long golf course back then was in the order of 5800 yds.

 

In 1900, Coburn Haskell of the BF Goodrich company invented the wound center rubber core golf ball. Immediately the game's elite players back then gained 30-40 yds with this change in the ball. The USGA and R&A did nothing about this, probably because they just were not aware of the ramifications of such a significant change in the equipment.

 

Instantly the courses previously used for elite events were no longer the challenge they were in the gutty era. Some of these courses did build longer tees but mainly what happened was that when new courses were built, they were made to be 6700-6900 yds from the tips to accommodate the new ball. And players just got used to a long par 4 hole going from 375 to 450. But I'm sure at the time golfers must have thought with a tone of incredulity, "wow, how can we have a 450 yards par-4 ????"

 

Why's should it be any different today when we talk about the elite players and the courses they play for elite events? What's wrong with having 550 yd par-4's if the goal is to make these guys hit driver/long iron on a long par 4? Why's that any different in the thought process than back in 1900 when golfers had to adjust to the concept of a par-4 now would be 75 yds longer than they were used to?

 

But it seems that today it is just "not acceptable" to think about par-4's that would be 75 yds longer than what we have been used to - at least it is not acceptable with the USGA for some reason.

 

Sure there are different schools of thought about this. But for me with a long time in the game and its industry, reeling back the ball for the tour would be a big mistake and would take a whole lot away from this great game. The fact that we all play with the same equipment is part of the greatness of this game. To adjust for differences in our skills vs the tour players, we can play the forward tees.

 

To me the absolute greatest thing about we mortals vs the tour players is that on any day, any of us can hit one ore more shots that no tour player could ever hope to hit better even with their greater level of skill. If I make a 40 footer in a tournament, no tour player could do better on that same putt. If I hole a pitch shot from 60 yds under pressure, no tour player can hit that shot from the same place any better. If I knock a full 7 iron stiff to make birdie, they can't do any better on the same shot from the same place on the hole other than to hole it which they won't do very often. And so on.

 

No other sport or game can make that claim. In tennis, you'll never return Roger Federer's serve. In skiing you'll never make a turn like Ted Ligety can. In baseball you'll never be able to hit a pitch from CC Sabathia. And so on.

 

If you change the ball for the tour players, it won't be the same game we all play.

 

Yes the swing speed averages are much greater than 25 years ago, but there were some guys back then that had a some speed, Davis Love and John Daly were no slouches. There are just more players in this category now than then, and in my opinion have a greater advantage for it than 25 years ago. Skillful players are just getting out muscled.

 

The fact is the gains are there for what ever reason, finger pointing is just time wasting as far as I am concerned. A consensus on the way forward is what is needed. Clearly the golfing world is divided on the subject.

 

A lot of golf courses have been built in the last 100 years, some may have the space to icorporate 525 yard par 4's and 650 yard par 5's but many won't. The average length of a PGA Tour event is still around 7200 yards which is the same as 2003. So if super long is the way forward for golf courses, more will need to be built.

 

Why do we need longer courses? Will it increase the enjoyment? It's not going to make golf quicker to play or watch.

 

My knowledge of golf history is not going to be a vast as yours, but I do know that the distance argument is not a new thing. I use to find the old 1.62 diameter balls on the course I grew up playing on. Many things have been tried but It seems none have succeeded.

 

I do completely agree with you on the issue of bifurcation of the equipment, for all the reasons you have stated. My other fear us it will just increase the cost of the balls/equipment to the consumer.

 

Yes the game is great because we plebs can in some capacity hit shots like the guys on television, we can also play a 4 ball all with different skill levels and have a competitive game which is just not possible in any other sport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[North Butte]

Mahonie, you're spot on about the defacto bifurcation that existed 25-30 years ago.

 

The big differential between years ago and today is not the distance but the rail like quality of the ball. Wind effect on it is greatly diminished because it is more aerodynamic, side spin is diminished because it launches with lower spin yet final spin ends up higher.. Coupled with big headed drivers, it's a much straighter game. Good for duffer bad for spectating the PGA, bad for Amen Corner, bad for The Open.

 

We can build longer courses that take all this in account, Pete Dye does it, but we've hit a wall where pillars of the game's history are becoming irrelevant and it's not just about power and distance. Last time the 12th at Augusta mattered or was truly scary was 15 years ago. Why? The wind and the havoc it could descend on the old ball. So today's guy hit harder but they do not have to contend with the same variables that once were common in every prior era. How is that progress or adds interest to the game?

 

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

 

Tom answered this in his earlier post I think. The "pillars of the game" in 1900 were made obsolete and courses like Augusta were built. Augusta is being made obsolete and somewhere a bulldozer just cleared the first bit of rock for what someone in 2055 will call a pillar of the game.

 

It is ever-changing. The second the game stops evolving and clings too tightly to history is when it starts to die. There were "pillars of the game" in 1900 that are ghosts today and today's pillars will be tomorrow's ghosts.

 

It's like the poem. My name is ozymandius, king of kings.

 

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

Still what is not answered is how is it that we've accepted the neutering of elements in the manner that has been done. Wind as a hazard has been significantly tamed and it does not make for better golf. It has dumbed down the game and its taken a lot of drama out of Pro events. Not my idea of evolution.

 

So “nobody” cares about anything that happened before YOU started playing golf. And once you arrived on the scene every single thing about the game should have been frozen exactly where YOU wanted it.

 

The stuff before you doesn’t matter. Anything after you is dumb. Your favorite equipment is perfect. Your golf heros will never be matched.

 

I can’t really argue with logic like that.

[Bad9]

 

I see nothing in that paragraph that answers the question I asked. Unless you are assuming that distance is capped and tech will no longer evolve any further. If that's the case it isn't stated here.

 

Not to mention the other half of the equation. Speed. As in are we expecting sweet spot to increase to the point that 140 mph guys can exist on tour ?

 

After rereading my post, you are right it doesn't really address what you asked. I was responding more to your general position in various threads about the effects of technology and rolling it back. I need to be more precise and clearer when responding. The point I was trying to illustrate was that Tom supports the contention that I and others have made, that most of the distance gains of the last decade have come from better athletes with better training playing on courses set up for distance vs equipment technology improvements. I don't see anything in his comments that suggests that he feels that anything needs to be reigned in or rolled back.

[Nard_S]

There's no doubting that technology has taken wind and spin and muted them both. As a hazard, as an obstacle, as an intended design aspect, as a part of the challenge, they have been reeled in.

 

Added rough, speedy greens and 8000 yard tee boxes do not replace what is lost. Creativity and strategy has taken a hit with it too. A dynamic wild card has been done away with especially on the Tour level.

 

There's nothing backwards, nostalgic or parochial about acknowledging it.

[pinestreetgolf]

There's no doubting that technology has taken wind and spin and muted them both. As a hazard, as an obstacle, as an intended design aspect, as a part of the challenge, they have been reeled in.

 

Added rough, speedy greens and 8000 yard tee boxes do not replace what is lost. Creativity and strategy has taken a hit with it too. A dynamic wild card has been done away with especially on the Tour level.

 

There's nothing backwards, nostalgic or parochial about acknowledging it.

 

Good lord. That isn't how physics works. If the ball is flying farther, its effected the same by a smaller wind effect. If I hit a ball 400 yards in 2% wind I have to factor in the wind just as much as a roughly 260 yard ball in 4% wind. You can't say that wind matters less and the ball is flying farther at the same time, without some serious scientific results to back that up. The longer the ball is in the air the more it is effected by wind, so the carry increase is offsetting the ball pretty significantly.

 

There is a ton backwards, nostalgic or parochial about acknowledging it. The game has changed a lot since 1900 and in 3017 it will be a lot different from now. Not worse, just different. In fact, your post is kinda the definition of nostalgic and parochial (I'd also add condescending, but w/e). Its like when people say "I just want X, is that so selfish?" - well, yeah, its the very definition of selfish. "No matter what they do, the version of golf I watched and I like is the best is changing and we're losing something no matter what" is literally the definition of backwards, nostalgic nonsense. Its OK, you can think that (I do about tennis) but at least own it. Don't act like you're not being the old fogey, nostalgic "we had to walk in 10 miles of snow to school" guy.

 

Your version of golf is not the best version, just like 1910 wasn't the best, and 2017 isn't the best. They are all different.

[Tyler1putt]

Several great posts from TOM.

 

I do however have a question regarding the swing speed increase. I completely agree with the top guys are athletes now but is it not easier to swing the new gear faster ? Have the newer more aerodynamic clubs contributed to swing speed at all ?

[Tyler1putt]

Mahonie, you're spot on about the defacto bifurcation that existed 25-30 years ago.

 

The big differential between years ago and today is not the distance but the rail like quality of the ball. Wind effect on it is greatly diminished because it is more aerodynamic, side spin is diminished because it launches with lower spin yet final spin ends up higher.. Coupled with big headed drivers, it's a much straighter game. Good for duffer bad for spectating the PGA, bad for Amen Corner, bad for The Open.

 

We can build longer courses that take all this in account, Pete Dye does it, but we've hit a wall where pillars of the game's history are becoming irrelevant and it's not just about power and distance. Last time the 12th at Augusta mattered or was truly scary was 15 years ago. Why? The wind and the havoc it could descend on the old ball. So today's guy hit harder but they do not have to contend with the same variables that once were common in every prior era. How is that progress or adds interest to the game?

 

Augusta spent $20 million just to lengthen the 13th, they should have spent a fraction of that installing Bermuda greens like it once had had. It would take the course to a new level of difficulty that no tech can tame, only talent, just as it should be.

 

Im pretty sure Speith would disagree. That hole basically handed Willett a green jacket

[pinestreetgolf]

Several great posts from TOM.

 

I do however have a question regarding the swing speed increase. I completely agree with the top guys are athletes now but is it not easier to swing the new gear faster ? Have the newer more aerodynamic clubs contributed to swing speed at all ?

 

This is a great question I'd love to hear from Mr. Wishon on. My new Epic head let me go to a much lighter shaft with the same spin and I picked up 2 mph. Do Turbolators and Boeing-designed drivers matter at all?

 

Great post and great question.

 

Tagged him so he might see it.

 

[gvogel]

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

In 100 years nobody will remember where Spieth won.

 

Some of us remember that Tom Morris won his Open Championships at Prestwick. Which was a course that he laid out. And I would love to play, along with North Berwick.

[Tyler1putt]

Yeah, I guess you can see it that way but championship history is measured in large part off the majors and the pillars of them are Augusta and The Open circuit. Nobody remembers where Tom Morris won.

 

In 100 years nobody will remember where Spieth won.

 

Some of us remember that Tom Morris won his Open Championships at Prestwick. Which was a course that he laid out. And I would love to play, along with North Berwick.

 

Completely off topic but North Berwick is a great track theres loads in that area Archerfield Renaissaince Gullane (please excuse all spelling)

[gvogel]

Thanks Tom, yes this does help.

 

The distance debate will rage on. Everyone has their own perspective and views on this but it is useful to have a better understanding on the subject.

 

I was not aware that so much could be done with the old drivers. I guess we are lucky now that this adaptability and knowledge is not just available to the tour players.

 

With Titleist blaming everything but the ball for the distance gains, Jack Niclaus saying dial back the ball and course designers like Pete Dye saying mowers are to blame it's hard to understand the causes. In truth it's probably a combination of many things like better coaching, trackman, force plates etc.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

Chris.

 

Shoot, the biggest thing that has contributed to how far these guys hit it today is plain and simple, their clubhead speed. These guys are athletes now. Today the average driver clubhead speed on tour is 113-114 mph with some able to easily swing the driver at 120+. 30 yrs ago the average driver speed on tour was 105mph. With the driver for each 1mph you increase clubhead speed, you get another 2.8 yds of carry distance. That means a 113 driver speed brings about +23 yds more in carry distance. 120mph vs 105mph means 42 more yards of carry.

 

Then add on how they mow fairways on tour today to not more than 1/2" vs how it was 30 yrs ago and you can add even more for an increase in roll after landing.

 

Last on the list comes the advent of titanium drivers in the early 90s with their higher COR than the old stainless metal woods or persimmon woods of the early to late 80s. Persimmon and the old stainless driver heads both have a COR around 0.77-0.78. Compare that to a 0.83 COR for a player with a 113 mph driver speed and its worth +11 yards of carry distance.

 

Then for approach shots, you have the simple fact that today's irons that the tour players use have about 4* less loft per the same iron number than 30 yrs ago. And that's only for those pros who use muscleback blade forgings. For the ones who use cast cavity backs, it can be about 5-6* less loft today per the same iron number. So that explains a big part of why we all are amazed to hear these guys hitting a 7 iron from 180 or more. The rest of it again comes from the fact today's average 7 iron clubhead speed on tour is much higher at an average of 90mph. 30 yrs ago the avg 7-iron speed on tour was in the low to mid 80s. So again a higher clubhead speed from being better golf athletes is most of it for more iron distance today, but the shrinking loft trend of the big companies is the rest.

 

Now you understand how these guys play a 495 yd par-4 with a driver and 7 iron or less. Most of it is from the golfer and the way they groom fairways, not from the equipment.

 

But no one wants to seem to accept this, especially the USGA. They seem to want to "blame" the equipment designers.

 

If you're still interested in this, let me share some past history that is kind of interesting. Way back before 1900, the predominant ball of choice were balls molded from gutta percha, a type of rubber that comes from the Sapodila tree. A long golf course back then was in the order of 5800 yds.

 

In 1900, Coburn Haskell of the BF Goodrich company invented the wound center rubber core golf ball. Immediately the game's elite players back then gained 30-40 yds with this change in the ball. The USGA and R&A did nothing about this, probably because they just were not aware of the ramifications of such a significant change in the equipment.

 

Instantly the courses previously used for elite events were no longer the challenge they were in the gutty era. Some of these courses did build longer tees but mainly what happened was that when new courses were built, they were made to be 6700-6900 yds from the tips to accommodate the new ball. And players just got used to a long par 4 hole going from 375 to 450. But I'm sure at the time golfers must have thought with a tone of incredulity, "wow, how can we have a 450 yards par-4 ????"

 

Why's should it be any different today when we talk about the elite players and the courses they play for elite events? What's wrong with having 550 yd par-4's if the goal is to make these guys hit driver/long iron on a long par 4? Why's that any different in the thought process than back in 1900 when golfers had to adjust to the concept of a par-4 now would be 75 yds longer than they were used to?

 

But it seems that today it is just "not acceptable" to think about par-4's that would be 75 yds longer than what we have been used to - at least it is not acceptable with the USGA for some reason.

 

Sure there are different schools of thought about this. But for me with a long time in the game and its industry, reeling back the ball for the tour would be a big mistake and would take a whole lot away from this great game. The fact that we all play with the same equipment is part of the greatness of this game. To adjust for differences in our skills vs the tour players, we can play the forward tees.

 

To me the absolute greatest thing about we mortals vs the tour players is that on any day, any of us can hit one ore more shots that no tour player could ever hope to hit better even with their greater level of skill. If I make a 40 footer in a tournament, no tour player could do better on that same putt. If I hole a pitch shot from 60 yds under pressure, no tour player can hit that shot from the same place any better. If I knock a full 7 iron stiff to make birdie, they can't do any better on the same shot from the same place on the hole other than to hole it which they won't do very often. And so on.

 

No other sport or game can make that claim. In tennis, you'll never return Roger Federer's serve. In skiing you'll never make a turn like Ted Ligety can. In baseball you'll never be able to hit a pitch from CC Sabathia. And so on.

 

If you change the ball for the tour players, it won't be the same game we all play.

 

Yes the swing speed averages are much greater than 25 years ago, but there were some guys back then that had a some speed, Davis Love and John Daly were no slouches. There are just more players in this category now than then, and in my opinion have a greater advantage for it than 25 years ago. Skillful players are just getting out muscled.

 

The fact is the gains are there for what ever reason, finger pointing is just time wasting as far as I am concerned. A consensus on the way forward is what is needed. Clearly the golfing world is divided on the subject.

 

A lot of golf courses have been built in the last 100 years, some may have the space to icorporate 525 yard par 4's and 650 yard par 5's but many won't. The average length of a PGA Tour event is still around 7200 yards which is the same as 2003. So if super long is the way forward for golf courses, more will need to be built.

 

Why do we need longer courses? Will it increase the enjoyment? It's not going to make golf quicker to play or watch.

 

My knowledge of golf history is not going to be a vast as yours, but I do know that the distance argument is not a new thing. I use to find the old 1.62 diameter balls on the course I grew up playing on. Many things have been tried but It seems none have succeeded.

 

I do completely agree with you on the issue of bifurcation of the equipment, for all the reasons you have stated. My other fear us it will just increase the cost of the balls/equipment to the consumer.

 

Yes the game is great because we plebs can in some capacity hit shots like the guys on television, we can also play a 4 ball all with different skill levels and have a competitive game which is just not possible in any other sport.

 

Why do we need longer courses? This is actually an important question. Many will say that the guy shooting the lowest score wins, so who cares if they play at 7,000 yards or 8,000 yards?

 

On the other hand, if you are the in the "lowest score wins" camp, why not play tour golf on an executive course - mostly par 3's with a couple of par 4's over 300 yards? Lowest score wins, right?

 

Well, present golf has sorted evolved along courses that have 2 - 4 par 5's, 4 par 3's, and 10 or so par 4's. That is a historical/traditional evolution. It seems to be a formula that the best golf course designers, and the folks who hold the most important tournaments agree on.

 

So, with increases in the athleticism of the players, higher COR of drivers, longer, lighter shafts and a better ball, the game will soon need to be played at 8,000 yards in order to have the requisite number of par 5's and par 4's.

 

That is fine as long as it goes, except for a couple of things: purchasing more land to lengthen courses is becoming damn expensive, and walking longer courses takes more time. If you don't give a hoot about money or time, then the modern ball and driver are not a problem.

 

By the way, after reading Tom Wishon's comments above about hitting shots - every once in awhile - as good as a tour pro, I have come around to the opinion that the equipment should be changed for everyone, not just pros.

 

IN 1931 the USGA mandated a lighter ball - 1.55 ounces. The pros didn't like it. Maybe the USGA went too far; maybe going from 1.62 ounces to 1.58 would help keep present courses as a test for the best.