When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[jdmorris1980]

John Huston shot -28 there in 1998. It’s not like it’s a real challenging course and certainly not one to judge the entire sport on.

[ChronicSlicer]

Call it optimized if you want, but at the end of the day the bat today is the same bat as in 1970.

 

No, it really isn't. Modern bats in MLB are frequently made of a different wood, and generally lighter than what was used in times of yore, due to more information and study of what generates bat speed.

 

It's rather unlikely you'd see someone today using anything close to the weight of bat used by someone like Harmon Killebrew, as one example.

 

Edited to add: rules have changed relatively recently, bat barrels are smaller now than previously allowed.

 

Ok, usually these bats are made to spec for a specific player, a little shorter, a little thicker in the handle, shave some weight maybe. What my point is the bat hasn`t been really been messed with, theres no "speed slot", no titanium core, no face cup technology, it`s a piece of lumber.

[Bad9]

The golf industry has changed in regards to the "how do I get better?" question.

 

It's not about learning the fundamentals and hitting straight shots. It's about bombing the ball out there with your new driver. Then smashing one onto the green in 2 with your 3 wood. Then using the latest putting groove technology to roll the ball in perfectly straight on an off centred hit.

 

I think there as many or more modern golfers with good fundamentals as there has been in the past. Didn't all the old pros work the ball on command on every shot vs hitting it straight. At least thats the takeaway I have from the various blades vs cb, old pros vs moden pros, et al on Wrx.

[gvogel]

The winners of professional tournaments don't win because of the clubs. DJ could have used his old M2 and won, he was hitting the ball amazing.

 

Does the M4 give him more confidence on off centred hits? Sure. Did that win him the tournament? No.

 

The best will always win. Nothing beats talent AND hard work which is DJ's game right now.

 

Twist face won't hurt his game because he hits middle a lot more than the average golfer. Will it hurt a high handicapper that's always hitting the toe? Sure, because when they hit anything but the M4 they won't get the same result. However, being punished after every bad shot is what detracts people from golf. The easier the game the better. Nobody is dropping 10 strokes a round because of twist face, but if it can help Joe Blow hit a couple more fairways on terrible misses then why not?

 

The game is hard enough already, the mentality that everyone should hit blades to become better ball strikers is ridiculous. Some people just can't find the middle of the club. Does that mean they don't deserve to enjoy the game the way others with more skill do?

 

In a tournament situation ? Absolutely yes they do not deserve to enjoy the same game as the guy who hits the center.

 

It's thoughts like these that remind me why the game of golf is slowly dying. Sorry, that's a piss poor mentality to have.

 

It is slowly dying because: 1. it takes a long time for a round of golf (5 hours; a football game only takes 3); 2. less disposable income - the middle class is working longer hours for a smaller piece of the pie; 3. kids are in more structured sports, and rarely get dropped off at a public facility to play for a day (and Dad is busy weekends taking Johnny to baseball, soccer or hockey); and 4. the game has gotten more expensive to play. But it is mainly a time constraint. Wouldn't it be great if there was a game of mini golf that could be played on a 5,000 yard course with a regular driver but a reduced ball, that would take 3-1/2 hours?

 

The attitude that you mention has nothing to do with the dying of golf. It happens to be the attitude of 1 person on this thread.

[North Butte]

The golf industry has changed in regards to the "how do I get better?" question.

 

It's not about learning the fundamentals and hitting straight shots. It's about bombing the ball out there with your new driver. Then smashing one onto the green in 2 with your 3 wood. Then using the latest putting groove technology to roll the ball in perfectly straight on an off centred hit.

 

I think there as many or more modern golfers with good fundamentals as there has been in the past. Didn't all the old pros work the ball on command on every shot vs hitting it straight. At least thats the takeaway I have from the various blades vs cb, old pros vs moden pros, et al on Wrx.

 

There's no way to test it but I would be willing to bet Dustin Johnson purposely moves shots right-to-left or left-to-right every bit as often as Jack Nicklaus did. Jack has said he would only "work" the ball when it was impossible to play his stock shot and leave himself a reasonable putt at the hole (which given Jack's putting, "reasonable" covers a lot of territory).

[chisag]

I think there as many or more modern golfers with good fundamentals as there has been in the past. Didn't all the old pros work the ball on command on every shot vs hitting it straight. At least thats the takeaway I have from the various blades vs cb, old pros vs moden pros, et al on Wrx.

 

 

... No doubt fundamentals are better today. As we keep saying the balata ball was impossible to hit straight both by construction and dimple design. Pro's worked the ball because they had to, and many had homemade swings that worked with the equipment available. Once power replaced working the ball fundamentals become more important. You can hit a 20 yard cut with an over the top slap at the ball if you do it the same way every time and hit a ton of fairways leaving a mid iron into the green. Today a slapped 20 yard cut on a 504 yd par 4 will leave them with a fairway wood approach and while their skill may have enabled them to get "up and down" from 244 todays golfers are hitting mid to short irons to the same green. If Hall Of Fame player like Chi Chi Rodriguez in his prime, played in a current PGA Tournament with today's equipment, I think you can easily make the argument that he would not even make the cut. You simply cannot hit the ball extraordinarily long with poor fundamentals. Of course by the same theory there is an equally good chance that given Chi Chi's equipment, DJ might miss the cut in a 1968 tournament too, but he would have a much better chance then, than Chi Chi would have now.

[mahonie]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

[NRJyzr]

The golf industry has changed in regards to the "how do I get better?" question.

 

It's not about learning the fundamentals and hitting straight shots. It's about bombing the ball out there with your new driver. Then smashing one onto the green in 2 with your 3 wood. Then using the latest putting technology to roll the ball in perfectly.

 

Bull.

 

You have to have good fundamentals to be able to "bomb it". And you sure as heck have to be a able to hit straight shots. Have you ever stopped to think how accurate a 320-yard drive has to be in order for the player to even find the ball to hit the next shot?

 

Go stand 1/4 mile away from a street sign. Notice how small it looks from that distance? Now imagine hitting a ball down that street so perfectly that it roll right up to the base of the sign. That's basically what DJ did on his near-ace.

 

 

I don't know. I get what you are saying. But I could name 4 low single digit handicaps that if made to hit a small driver and a set of blades would likely raise 5 shots or more in Handicap by the next revision. They have decent fundamentals as far as being able to hit a ball. But ones Driver face looks like a shotgun practice target. And the other has a chipper and a Cleveland sure out wedge. ( yips sufferer). These are less than 5 caps each. From the men's tees. Tech is certainly helping. A lot.

 

 

Edit. That's not to say that it's right or wrong to force those guys to use something that hurts instead of helps. But I just can't to with the " tech isn't making a difference " argument. It is. That same tech. Even if I'm small amounts helps the top guy too. Being able to swing hard at a driver without fear is a big deal.

 

In contrast, I can name a single digit player (6-7 index) who scores better with blades, and sees no scoring increase with a switch to persimmon. It's arguable he might see some benefit to his scores, if only slightly, were he to switch to them full time.

 

Golf is nothing if not a game of differences. ;)

 

edited for autocorrect entertainment

[North Butte]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

 

You keep making exactly our point for us. Older equipment had ridiculous limitation on Performance for stronger player, therefore it was replaced with equipment did not have those limitations. That is improvement by any conceivable measure.

 

But it’s like you have latched on to the worst shortcomings of that equipment and are trying to insist that those equipment shortcomings are the essence of the damn game. Golf is about propelling a ball under your own power over great distances with accuracy, not about trying to figure out ways to deal with crap equipment.

[NRJyzr]

I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!).

 

He can say it all he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

 

PMick's distance each year for the period in question, per the PGA Tour driving distance stats:

1999 - 285.7

2000 - 288.7

2001 - 293.9

2002 - 288.8

 

Gotta love anecdotal evidence :)

[mahonie]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

 

You keep making exactly our point for us. Older equipment had ridiculous limitation on Performance for stronger player, therefore it was replaced with equipment did not have those limitations. That is improvement by any conceivable measure.

 

But it’s like you have latched on to the worst shortcomings of that equipment and are trying to insist that those equipment shortcomings are the essence of the damn game. Golf is about propelling a ball under your own power over great distances with accuracy, not about trying to figure out ways to deal with crap equipment.

 

It’s because they are the essence of the game...that is the point!! In 400 years golf has never been a game dominated by power and speed until now. Yes improvement in everything is part of the human condition, but the 460cc head and Pro V1 ball both contributed to a step-change that changed the fundamental nature of the game. Courses everywhere are becoming obsolete because they are not long enough. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, but have any baseball stadia been increased in size to prevent balls being hit into the car lot?

[North Butte]

So why aren’t we hitting leather sacks of feathers with wooden sticks then?

[NRJyzr]

In 400 years golf has never been a game dominated by power and speed until now.

 

 

I'm sorry amigo, but t's ALWAYS been true. Jack Nicklaus wallowed in being able to hit it farther than everyone else, until age robbed him of it.

 

From the 97 Masters highlight telecast, a comparison of approach shots between Tiger and Jack:

 

 

[Bad9]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

 

You keep making exactly our point for us. Older equipment had ridiculous limitation on Performance for stronger player, therefore it was replaced with equipment did not have those limitations. That is improvement by any conceivable measure.

 

But it’s like you have latched on to the worst shortcomings of that equipment and are trying to insist that those equipment shortcomings are the essence of the damn game. Golf is about propelling a ball under your own power over great distances with accuracy, not about trying to figure out ways to deal with crap equipment.

 

It’s because they are the essence of the game...that is the point!! In 400 years golf has never been a game dominated by power and speed until now. Yes improvement in everything is part of the human condition, but the 460cc head and Pro V1 ball both contributed to a step-change that changed the fundamental nature of the game. Courses everywhere are becoming obsolete because they are not long enough. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, but have any baseball stadia been increased in size to prevent balls being hit into the car lot?

 

They guys who could hit it further than than peers have almost always dominated.

[North Butte]

Sounds like what you really want is for golf to be a game that a real athlete like Dustin Johnson would not want to waste his time on. You are expecting equipment to penalize any better than mediocre physical ability.

[chisag]

I'm sorry amigo, but t's ALWAYS been true. Jack Nicklaus wallowed in being able to hit it farther than everyone else, until age robbed him of it.

 

From the 97 Masters highlight telecast, a comparison of approach shots between Tiger and Jack:

 

 

... While that is true, it does not take into account that even short hitters could win back then. Yes, hitting it longer had it's advantages as power does in all sports, but being extremely accurate was also good enough then to win even a Major. Not so today, as a short very accurate player has very little chance today. It was a completely different kind of golf for most. I kinda miss those days of great ball striking and shot making abilities but time marches on. And if you are being honest, wouldn't you rather NBA players go back to two hand chest passes and set shots instead of this silly power dunking? :wacko:

[North Butte]

Wesley Brian is not by any modern reckoning a long hitter. He won last year at Harbor Town.

[mahonie]

I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!).

 

He can say it all he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

 

PMick's distance each year for the period in question, per the PGA Tour driving distance stats:

1999 - 285.7

2000 - 288.7

2001 - 293.9

2002 - 288.8

 

Gotta love anecdotal evidence :)

 

Bad example...just realised he doesn’t hit enough fairways to get properly measured!! (47 out of 112 this season). ;-)

[Bye]

I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!).

 

He can say it all he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

 

PMick's distance each year for the period in question, per the PGA Tour driving distance stats:

1999 - 285.7

2000 - 288.7

2001 - 293.9

2002 - 288.8

 

Gotta love anecdotal evidence :)

 

2003 - 306

 

The Professional ball was in play before the V1, it was a bit longer than the Tour Balata.

 

Looks like 18 yards in one year and 31 over a 4 year period.

[mahonie]

Wesley Brian is not by any modern reckoning a long hitter. He won last year at Harbor Town.

 

Isn’t Harbour Town one of the tightest courses on the PGA Tour?

 

Taken from their website:

 

‘It is both the crowning achievement of famed designer Pete Dye and design consultant Jack Nicklaus, and a perennial favorite among PGA TOUR players, as it places a premium on finesse, imagination and shot making, rather than strength.’

[mahonie]

Sounds like what you really want is for golf to be a game that a real athlete like Dustin Johnson would not want to waste his time on. You are expecting equipment to penalize any better than mediocre physical ability.

 

Not at all. I just think that the majority of PGA Tour courses are largely set up to play into the hands of the big-hitters and it’s making professional golf very one-dimensional.

[NRJyzr]

I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!).

 

He can say it all he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

 

PMick's distance each year for the period in question, per the PGA Tour driving distance stats:

1999 - 285.7

2000 - 288.7

2001 - 293.9

2002 - 288.8

 

Gotta love anecdotal evidence :)

 

2003 - 306

 

The Professional ball was in play before the V1, it was a bit longer than the Tour Balata.

 

Looks like 18 yards in one year and 31 over a 4 year period.

 

 

The 306 looks somewhat aberrational when you also look at his drop to 295 in 2004. :)

 

We're really dealing with Small Sample Size Theater in looking at only one player, not to mention possible equipment changes and so on. If you look at the entire tour, it's more interesting, and has more value.

 

Spikes due to solid core balls in 2001 and 2002, combination of lower spin balls and larger drivers in 2003 (or maybe just larger drivers), and fairly flat after that until you get to launch monitors and low spin drivers, several years later:

1999 272.4

2000 273.2

2001 279.3

2002 279.8

2003 286.3

2004 287.3

2005 288.9

2006 289.3

2007 289.1

2008 287.7

 

If you look at the distance stat for players who were active in both 1999 and 2002, the change in distance from The Switch is less than 6 yds. When I first looked at this, I picked 2002 without looking at 2001, looking to weed out any stragglers, but the change there is pretty flat.

[ChronicSlicer]

For those of you who think today`s drivers don`t help with distance explain how young guys like Spieth and P.Reed are just barely out driving guys like Kenny Perry and Scott Mccarron who could easily be their fathers.

[Bad9]

For those of you who think today`s drivers don`t help with distance explain how young guys like Spieth and P.Reed are just barely out driving guys like Kenny Perry and Scott Mccarron who could easily be their fathers.

 

The first thing I would look at is to see if they have similar swing speeds. They all use the same ball and clubs so the swing speeds must be close.

[pinestreetgolf]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

 

You keep making exactly our point for us. Older equipment had ridiculous limitation on Performance for stronger player, therefore it was replaced with equipment did not have those limitations. That is improvement by any conceivable measure.

 

But it’s like you have latched on to the worst shortcomings of that equipment and are trying to insist that those equipment shortcomings are the essence of the damn game. Golf is about propelling a ball under your own power over great distances with accuracy, not about trying to figure out ways to deal with crap equipment.

 

It’s because they are the essence of the game...that is the point!! In 400 years golf has never been a game dominated by power and speed until now. Yes improvement in everything is part of the human condition, but the 460cc head and Pro V1 ball both contributed to a step-change that changed the fundamental nature of the game. Courses everywhere are becoming obsolete because they are not long enough. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, but have any baseball stadia been increased in size to prevent balls being hit into the car lot?

 

lol who are you to decide the "essence" of golf?

 

Shivas irons drove it 280 with a tree branch. Power is a huge part of the game even in a mystical book like golf in the kingdom.

[earleyrc]

I think this question is precisely why the USGA has a conforming equipment list. The guys, and gals, we all think of as the best players in the world are indeed the best players in the world. They all have access to the same equipment, and what they choose to play probably suits their swing mechanics best (or they play whoever gives them the most sponsorship $$).

 

I don't think anything less of other amateur players if they play SGI vs. my "players" irons.. If I get beat, it's because they played a better round of golf than I did.

[Shilgy]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

Are your irons bigger also? Why are you still as long as you get older with irons?

For those of you who think today`s drivers don`t help with distance explain how young guys like Spieth and P.Reed are just barely out driving guys like Kenny Perry and Scott Mccarron who could easily be their fathers.

How does that make sense? All four of those players are using the same equipment and are relatively the same in distance(except Reed is about ten yards shorter than the other three). The ball and club do not care how old you are. Faster swing speeds at center contact go further. Would/Should a young Corey Pavin hit it further than the current Kenny Perry just because he's younger?

[Shilgy]

I'm sorry amigo, but t's ALWAYS been true. Jack Nicklaus wallowed in being able to hit it farther than everyone else, until age robbed him of it.

 

From the 97 Masters highlight telecast, a comparison of approach shots between Tiger and Jack:

 

 

... While that is true, it does not take into account that even short hitters could win back then. Yes, hitting it longer had it's advantages as power does in all sports, but being extremely accurate was also good enough then to win even a Major. Not so today, as a short very accurate player has very little chance today. It was a completely different kind of golf for most. I kinda miss those days of great ball striking and shot making abilities but time marches on. And if you are being honest, wouldn't you rather NBA players go back to two hand chest passes and set shots instead of this silly power dunking? :wacko:

Kisner was 9th on the money list last year. 205th in distance at 275

[mahonie]

Tiger was second in driving distance in 2000 at 299 yards. That would place him at 65th accirding to the stats for this year. Just an indication of how quickly things are moving on.

 

Right, but that also doesn't mean its the equipment. NFL players are WAY faster than they were in even 1999 but they're not using bionic legs. Its nutrition and training combined with higher prize purses (so better athletes choose golf over other sports now when before they never chose golf).

 

This whole thread assumes the distance gain is due to equipment and I'm not sure you've made that case very well. Trackman, nutrition and fitness are 90% IMO. Otherwise why do we see such huge improvement in speed in sports that don't even use equipment now as compared to 1990?

 

If swing speeds were the same and distance much larger, then you could conclude it was equipment - more distance, same speed. But that isn't what is happening. DJ's speed is off the charts compared to Tom Weiskompf's speed. Given his speed is so much faster, that doesn't point to equipment and certainly not the driver head.

 

The reason swing speeds have increased is that everybody can go for it so much harder because of the size of the clubhead and because the ball doesn’t spin sideways anywhere near what it did. I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!). Ever since the coming of the Pro V1, swing speeds with drivers have increased because the level of control needed is far less than it used to be. My irons still go nearly the same distances as they did 20 years ago, but my driver is going 15% further with a slower swing...that is 100% down to equipment.

Are your irons bigger also? Why are you still as long as you get older with irons?

For those of you who think today`s drivers don`t help with distance explain how young guys like Spieth and P.Reed are just barely out driving guys like Kenny Perry and Scott Mccarron who could easily be their fathers.

How does that make sense? All four of those players are using the same equipment and are relatively the same in distance(except Reed is about ten yards shorter than the other three). The ball and club do not care how old you are. Faster swing speeds at center contact go further. Would/Should a young Corey Pavin hit it further than the current Kenny Perry just because he's younger?

 

Modern Ball is much straighter.

[Bye]

I remember Phil Mickelson saying that he added 25 yards to his drives the first day he played a Pro V1 because he knew the lateral curve was tiny compared to his Tour Balatas and he could go for it and still keep it in play (relatively!!).

 

He can say it all he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

 

PMick's distance each year for the period in question, per the PGA Tour driving distance stats:

1999 - 285.7

2000 - 288.7

2001 - 293.9

2002 - 288.8

 

Gotta love anecdotal evidence :)

 

2003 - 306

 

The Professional ball was in play before the V1, it was a bit longer than the Tour Balata.

 

Looks like 18 yards in one year and 31 over a 4 year period.

 

 

The 306 looks somewhat aberrational when you also look at his drop to 295 in 2004. :)

 

We're really dealing with Small Sample Size Theater in looking at only one player, not to mention possible equipment changes and so on. If you look at the entire tour, it's more interesting, and has more value.

 

Spikes due to solid core balls in 2001 and 2002, combination of lower spin balls and larger drivers in 2003 (or maybe just larger drivers), and fairly flat after that until you get to launch monitors and low spin drivers, several years later:

1999 272.4

2000 273.2

2001 279.3

2002 279.8

2003 286.3

2004 287.3

2005 288.9

2006 289.3

2007 289.1

2008 287.7

 

If you look at the distance stat for players who were active in both 1999 and 2002, the change in distance from The Switch is less than 6 yds. When I first looked at this, I picked 2002 without looking at 2001, looking to weed out any stragglers, but the change there is pretty flat.

 

I don't know the numbers of players that swapped straight away to the Pro V1, the first model had a seem in it, we were told to line the ball up with the seem hitting the middle if the club to get even more distance. Might have been an urban myth. I played the Callaway Rule 35 that year. I always thought 2003 was the full release of it, if you could get them.

 

I also don't know which year Phil moved to Callaway. But if a player like that says its 25 then it is. Launch monitors were around when the V1 was launched. Ok they are way more sophisticated now but they knew back then players needed to hit up on the ball.