When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[NRJyzr]

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.

 

The seam causing distance was urban myth. It was reported to be tested and found to be untrue.

 

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.

 

Anecdotal evidence again. The numbers say he didn't gain 25 yards, as much as he wanted to believe it.

 

It's not unlike the big fish caught years ago that keeps getting bigger as time passes. ;)

[Bye]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

[mahonie]

This article sort of sums up my recollections of the impact of the Pro V1:

 

https://www.pgatour.com/news/2015/10/20/big-tuesday-birth-Pro-V1-15-years-ago.html

[Uhit]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

[hybrid25]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

Since Tiger Woods came on the scene back in his day, everybody tried to keep up with him because he was more physically advanced than the rest of the field. Now all the golfers have personal trainers and weight rooms and strict diets, well at least most do.

[sdandrea]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

Since Tiger Woods came on the scene back in his day, everybody tried to keep up with him because he was more physically advanced than the rest of the field. Now all the golfers have personal trainers and weight rooms and strict diets, well at least most do.

 

Carl Pettersson? :taunt:

[mahonie]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

 

The higher swing speed is directly attributable to the ball...because it is not going to spin sideways OOB you can swing harder at it. Add in the 460cc head and there is the reason swing speeds are higher.

[Uhit]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

 

The higher swing speed is directly attributable to the ball...because it is not going to spin sideways OOB you can swing harder at it. Add in the 460cc head and there is the reason swing speeds are higher.

 

Strange, that Tiger Woods, John Daly, Jack Nicklaus, etc. swung so much faster than their peers, despite they used the same balls...

 

...and strange, that not everyone is swinging faster, since the introduction of the ProV1...

 

...so, I guess, that the higher swing speed is rather directly attributable, to the physical abilities of the athletes, and not to the ball.

[chisag]

... Chicken or egg. The ball curved much more and the harder you hit it the more it curved. It is what separated Nicklaus and Palmer from the field. Weiskopf was one of the longest hitter but so wild he won much less than his talent should have produced. (being the real tin cup didn't help either.) Todays ball curves much less and invites you to hit it harder. The two go hand in hand. Guys hit it much harder today because the ball allows them to do just that.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/video-golfers-try-to-drive-cherry-hills-green-with-persimmon-driver/

[Uhit]

... Chicken or egg. The ball curved much more and the harder you hit it the more it curved. It is what separated Nicklaus and Palmer from the field. Weiskopf was one of the longest hitter but so wild he won much less than his talent should have produced. (being the real tin cup didn't help either.) Todays ball curves much less and invites you to hit it harder. The two go hand in hand. Guys hit it much harder today because the ball allows them to do just that.

 

https://www.cbssport...rsimmon-driver/

 

Even if you repeat that more than 1001 times,

 

you can not explain, why there was no jump in swing speed, when they switched to "straighter" balls.

 

 

It is because they already swung near their limit, because they have to stay competitive.

 

 

I have also seen no indication, that the same athlete swung faster with a 460 cc head, than with a 440 head, or smaller...

[North Butte]

... Chicken or egg. The ball curved much more and the harder you hit it the more it curved. It is what separated Nicklaus and Palmer from the field. Weiskopf was one of the longest hitter but so wild he won much less than his talent should have produced. (being the real tin cup didn't help either.) Todays ball curves much less and invites you to hit it harder. The two go hand in hand. Guys hit it much harder today because the ball allows them to do just that.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/video-golfers-try-to-drive-cherry-hills-green-with-persimmon-driver/

 

Which is an advantage of the modern ball and why the horrible old ones disappeared almost overnight.

[chisag]

... Chicken or egg. The ball curved much more and the harder you hit it the more it curved. It is what separated Nicklaus and Palmer from the field. Weiskopf was one of the longest hitter but so wild he won much less than his talent should have produced. (being the real tin cup didn't help either.) Todays ball curves much less and invites you to hit it harder. The two go hand in hand. Guys hit it much harder today because the ball allows them to do just that.

 

https://www.cbssport...rsimmon-driver/

 

Which is an advantage of the modern ball and why the horrible old ones disappeared almost overnight.

 

... Like many back then, the first time I hit a ProV1 was a real eye opener and I switched from my beloved balata Maxfli HT100's and never even thought about going back. The irony is I missed that soft feel for a long time, but going back and hitting one now it feels like a marshmallow and I much prefer the feel of the modern ball.

[bladehunter]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

 

 

Do you not think players swing harder now as in all out vs persimmon days ? That’s where the speed is coming from.

[dunn]

If there was any club, putter, iron that was just flat out better for avg tour pro than anything else they would all be using it, copying it or whatever.....so no its still personal preference, contract obligations, that stand

 

Owned a ton of equipment and its all releatively same.....you have to gove up something if you want something....control for forgiveness, etc

 

None of these guys are hacks, lol

They arent looking for same things we are......and such a small margin between top guys and bottom ones...its a stroke here and there that seperates em.....

 

And yeah everyone has access to same stuff so it levels the field

 

Best if best still rise to top..and todays players are much more fitter, stronger and more educated on swing than yrs past

......

 

"You jist have to play better Francis"..

[hybrid25]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

 

 

Do you not think players swing harder now as in all out vs persimmon days ? That’s where the speed is coming from.

I like the term swing faster over harder, but that's just me. I think players are physically stronger and more fit then they used to be causing higher swing speeds, period.

[North Butte]

Why would you want to see professional athletes NOT swinging hard (fast) as they can? I mean serious, who pays to watch a professional sport and wants to see the competitors given sub-par equipment that keeps them from performing to the best of their ability?

 

You guys keep pitching the “old ball and clubs were so bad they were afraid to hit it hard” thing as some sort of cockeyed advantage rather than a limitation. Is it some sort of ego thing? Or just crazy talk?

[Uhit]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

 

 

Do you not think players swing harder now as in all out vs persimmon days ? That's where the speed is coming from.

I like the term swing faster over harder, but that's just me. I think players are physically stronger and more fit then they used to be causing higher swing speeds, period.

 

I also think, that "swing faster" is more suited to this theme, than "swing harder"...

 

...because you need a shaft that allows you to swing harder, if you are not able to swing smooth and fast.

 

The advancements in shaft technology and fitting possibilities are probably the most underrated aspects within this theme...

 

...beside the increased athleticism, and training aids, of course.

[Bubbtubbs]

They just need to make the courses more interesting. Say, having 30-40 yards of water or other hazard right in the typical approach landing zone.

 

It would force green shots from further out with a layup, or laser-accurate full shots to an island to approach from, for example.

[pinestreetgolf]

Missing from this conversation is the concept of variance, which is why tour pros would go just as hard at a balata ball as they do right now. The argument that the ball matters because you can swing hard at it is silly in light of how the prizes are distributed.

 

Variance is how much a player's scores vary week to week. Consistency and variance are opposites. A guy who hits it 270 is by definition more consistent than one who hits it 320 (he has 50 yards less miss zone, and he's probably pretty good at the other stuff to be on tour that short). There are two players who were as consistent as the most consistent short hitters but whose top gear still matched the top gear of the longest hitters. Their names were Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. They made tons of cuts AND won tons of tournaments. Very few others players do both of those things.

 

Right now, the tour *massively* rewards guys who can go really low a couple times a year. It wasn't always like that. Dick Stockton and Tom Kite could make great livings making top 30s every single week. Now you need to win a tournament every 2-3 years to maximize your earnings. The tour rewards variance, not consistency.

 

Its pretty extreme. Since money changes week to week, it was impossible to compute, so I used FedEx points. It is better to make top 5 four times and miss 31 cuts than it is to make thirty-six straight finishes between 25 and 35th place. That wasn't the case before the Tiger era. Before the Tiger era you wanted to make the cut every week and cash moderate checks all the time.

 

If you put 50 bombers in the same field as 50 finesse guys the finesse guys will win on average score but one of the bombers will go lower. The bombers have higher variance, so the ones that flame out we don't hear about and the one guy who shoots -24 we get all these idiotic complains. Its the prize structure, not the ball or the equipment. The prize structure incentivizes variance. The equipment and ball is 100% irrelevant - just move cash out of 1-5 and into 10-40 and everything would change.

 

Now, the purses are SO top heavy that you are rewarded for swinging out of your shoes because you only need a good finish once every 5-7 months. It used to be that you wanted a ton of top 30s, so people played like it. Now you want a one or two top fives, so people play like it. Whatever they incentive with prize distribution, they'll get. It has nothing to do with the ball or equipment. If tomorrow they re-distributed the prizes so the top earners were the ones who top 30'd half the events the course management of every pro would change overnight. They incentivize bombers to swing out of thier shoes because they reward top finishes so heavily, so that's exactly what they get.

 

Imagine if the NFL season was just the first week and they gave the Lombardi trophy to the team that scored the most points that week. Do you think anyone would punt?

[augustgolf]

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.

 

Go back a bit further John Daly topped the driving chart in 1992. He would be 160th on the 2017 season. The second longest that year would have been the 7th shortest on tour in 2017.

 

25 years.

I think it has more to do with the players conditioning today. Think back years ago when many of the golfers were very lanky and not very muscular. Now they are often fine-tune machines on workout regimens that make them very golf physically fit. Dustin Johnson is a perfect example. He is not only long and lanky, but he is very strong compared to Golfers back 25 years ago. There's only so much equipment can do for a player, you have to swing the club. Some in here think that you could hand a person without any golf experience today's irons and all of a sudden they be shooting scratch golf. This just isn't true, it takes personal dedication and practice no matter what clubs you are using.

 

Good post -- gonna let you in on a little secret. Golfers "BITD" were pretty fit, but certainly weren't the lanky physiques you see today. A couple examples.

 

True story. Arnold Palmer was in South Africa for a tournament, and there was some off time where he, Gary Player, and a few others went to a metal refinery that did a lot of gold smelting, etc. There was a stack of solid gold bars, and the "host/guide" told the group that if anyone could lift one of the bars with one hand, he could keep it. Arnie did it with no problem.

 

And Gary Player himself was a physical fitness afficianado, which came about from "touring" with Frank Stranahan, who was very wealthy as his father was the founder of Champion Spark Plug Co. This wealth provided Stranahan with the ability to focus on golf, which he played both as a world class amateur and a professional. Since the pros usually drove from tournament to tournament, Player became a travel companion with Stranahan, and became focused on his strength conditioning, as he toted his weights around with him.

 

Player himself could do amazing things in regards to strength. He could hold a golf club at the butt end of the grip with his arm extended away from his body, holding the club with only 2 fingers. Think it's easy???? Try it sometime, and do it with people watching....you'll quickly understand the strength necessary to do this.

 

What has made the difference today is that the materials from which modern clubs are composed has allowed the modern player to swing out of his/her shoes without fear of what might happen to the ball. While Nicklaus (known in small circles in college golf as "the pig" because he grunted every time his hit his driver as hard as he possibly could) could (and did) swing harder than most anyone else, he also was understanding enough of the golf swing to hold off the face to have the high fade that won him just about everything at least once.

 

I'm certainly not advocating that today's tour players revert to hickory shafts, wooden headed woods, and simple "heavy" steel shafts, or that they should play a balata or feathery ball. What I am saying is that without the advent of the technology, they simply couldn't swing they way that they do and get the results that they get.

 

Tennis went through this era, when players began to play with very large headed rackets made of aluminum. One of the results of this change was an immediate increase in elbow related injuries and inflammations. As tennis tech advanced, different materials were utilized to minimize the vibration made when the ball contacted the racket as well as the additional torque from contact further away from the hands, due to the larger surface of the racket face.

 

Today, we see it necessary to be a huge server, or not be able to compete as well.

 

So, while I certainly agree that the advances in tech with regards to golf equipment make it more enjoyable (or easier) for the average amateur, it has truly made some of the greatest golf courses obsolete, since they were designed with different playing parameters in place.

 

I agree that if courses were set up with smaller landing areas, and more severe rough if you missed the fairway and/or green, where you were literally penalized a half to full shot for inaccuracy, that these courses would once again be exceptionally relevant. They might actually be a little more difficult to score with the modern ball, since it does not spin as much as balata, and greens would be more difficult to hold in most conditions with any thing except the perfectly struck shot played to the proper position.

 

It is this last point that I believe has been lost. I know the tour players can hit most all the shots that modern equipment and course set ups require, but.....they can also get away with more less than perfectly struck and/or placed shots than ever before.

 

My

 

YMMV

[Shilgy]

^^^

 

There is loads of evidence out there to sow the gains made around 2002-3. Not many people dispute it. Anyone who was playing then will have seen it firsthand.

 

The driving distance stat doesn't tell the whole story, for a long time they only used 2 holes to measure per round to measure it.

 

Look at the ball speeds, that gives a much clearer indication.

 

Look at the average swing speed on the pga tour, which has increased from 104 mph in 1980 to 113 mph in 2016...

 

...which equals more than 20 yards additional distance potential...

 

...and is directly correlated to ball speed.

 

-

 

Thus, even if they would have used the same ball, and the same equipment, the distance increased by more than 20 yards - solely because of the higher swing speed...

 

...and not because of the ball.

 

 

Do you not think players swing harder now as in all out vs persimmon days ? That’s where the speed is coming from.

Do you good never go on you tube and watch video of Miller and Jack driving the ball. I've posted it. Watch their swings and tell me they were not swinging all out. Miller has footwork like Bubba.

[Shilgy]

Missing from this conversation is the concept of variance, which is why tour pros would go just as hard at a balata ball as they do right now. The argument that the ball matters because you can swing hard at it is silly in light of how the prizes are distributed.

 

Variance is how much a player's scores vary week to week. Consistency and variance are opposites. A guy who hits it 270 is by definition more consistent than one who hits it 320 (he has 50 yards less miss zone, and he's probably pretty good at the other stuff to be on tour that short). There are two players who were as consistent as the most consistent short hitters but whose top gear still matched the top gear of the longest hitters. Their names were Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. They made tons of cuts AND won tons of tournaments. Very few others players do both of those things.

 

Right now, the tour *massively* rewards guys who can go really low a couple times a year. It wasn't always like that. Dick Stockton and Tom Kite could make great livings making top 30s every single week. Now you need to win a tournament every 2-3 years to maximize your earnings. The tour rewards variance, not consistency.

 

Its pretty extreme. Since money changes week to week, it was impossible to compute, so I used FedEx points. It is better to make top 5 four times and miss 31 cuts than it is to make thirty-six straight finishes between 25 and 35th place. That wasn't the case before the Tiger era. Before the Tiger era you wanted to make the cut every week and cash moderate checks all the time.

 

If you put 50 bombers in the same field as 50 finesse guys the finesse guys will win on average score but one of the bombers will go lower. The bombers have higher variance, so the ones that flame out we don't hear about and the one guy who shoots -24 we get all these idiotic complains. Its the prize structure, not the ball or the equipment. The prize structure incentivizes variance. The equipment and ball is 100% irrelevant - just move cash out of 1-5 and into 10-40 and everything would change.

 

Now, the purses are SO top heavy that you are rewarded for swinging out of your shoes because you only need a good finish once every 5-7 months. It used to be that you wanted a ton of top 30s, so people played like it. Now you want a one or two top fives, so people play like it. Whatever they incentive with prize distribution, they'll get. It has nothing to do with the ball or equipment. If tomorrow they re-distributed the prizes so the top earners were the ones who top 30'd half the events the course management of every pro would change overnight. They incentivize bombers to swing out of thier shoes because they reward top finishes so heavily, so that's exactly what they get.

 

Imagine if the NFL season was just the first week and they gave the Lombardi trophy to the team that scored the most points that week. Do you think anyone would punt?

Hey Pine, do you have anything to back that up? Perhaps a link to the changed percentages? I'm pretty sure they have not changed in a loooong time.

An explanation:

http://golftips.golfweek.com/calculate-payout-professional-golf-tournaments-20519.html

 

For example. Mark Calcavecchia won the 1989 LA Open. Million dollar purse, $180k to Calc.

[pinestreetgolf]

Missing from this conversation is the concept of variance, which is why tour pros would go just as hard at a balata ball as they do right now. The argument that the ball matters because you can swing hard at it is silly in light of how the prizes are distributed.

 

Variance is how much a player's scores vary week to week. Consistency and variance are opposites. A guy who hits it 270 is by definition more consistent than one who hits it 320 (he has 50 yards less miss zone, and he's probably pretty good at the other stuff to be on tour that short). There are two players who were as consistent as the most consistent short hitters but whose top gear still matched the top gear of the longest hitters. Their names were Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. They made tons of cuts AND won tons of tournaments. Very few others players do both of those things.

 

Right now, the tour *massively* rewards guys who can go really low a couple times a year. It wasn't always like that. Dick Stockton and Tom Kite could make great livings making top 30s every single week. Now you need to win a tournament every 2-3 years to maximize your earnings. The tour rewards variance, not consistency.

 

Its pretty extreme. Since money changes week to week, it was impossible to compute, so I used FedEx points. It is better to make top 5 four times and miss 31 cuts than it is to make thirty-six straight finishes between 25 and 35th place. That wasn't the case before the Tiger era. Before the Tiger era you wanted to make the cut every week and cash moderate checks all the time.

 

If you put 50 bombers in the same field as 50 finesse guys the finesse guys will win on average score but one of the bombers will go lower. The bombers have higher variance, so the ones that flame out we don't hear about and the one guy who shoots -24 we get all these idiotic complains. Its the prize structure, not the ball or the equipment. The prize structure incentivizes variance. The equipment and ball is 100% irrelevant - just move cash out of 1-5 and into 10-40 and everything would change.

 

Now, the purses are SO top heavy that you are rewarded for swinging out of your shoes because you only need a good finish once every 5-7 months. It used to be that you wanted a ton of top 30s, so people played like it. Now you want a one or two top fives, so people play like it. Whatever they incentive with prize distribution, they'll get. It has nothing to do with the ball or equipment. If tomorrow they re-distributed the prizes so the top earners were the ones who top 30'd half the events the course management of every pro would change overnight. They incentivize bombers to swing out of thier shoes because they reward top finishes so heavily, so that's exactly what they get.

 

Imagine if the NFL season was just the first week and they gave the Lombardi trophy to the team that scored the most points that week. Do you think anyone would punt?

Hey Pine, do you have anything to back that up? Perhaps a link to the changed percentages? I'm pretty sure they have not changed in a loooong time.

An explanation:

http://golftips.golf...ents-20519.html

 

For example. Mark Calcavecchia won the 1989 LA Open. Million dollar purse, $180k to Calc.

 

Right, but that's not how percentages versus absolutes work.

 

The perentage is exactly the same. However, if the prize purse as a total goes up, the actual amount of cash for 1st goes up. So a 1st place finishes accumulates more cash / points now than ever before (and its massively different).

 

The issue is that its still the top 125, which is an absolute number, or top 75-30-whatever for FedEx, which is also an absolute number. And you don't pay your electric bills with how much percentage you made of the total purse. All your bank account cares about is the absolute amount.

 

So even though the purse is distributed exactly the same in terms of *percent*, any metric anyone would care about is absolute (top 125, 75, and, most importantly, your bank account). Nobody cares that the 125th guy now has 1/125th of the richest guy. They care what the actual dollars are, and first makes way way more of them now.

 

If they changed the measurement scales to percent you'd be right. But since the measurement scales are absolutes, the fact that the percent is the same is statistically irrelevant.

 

EDIT

Its actually significantly more complicated than that because there a finite number of tournaments per year and then it resets to zero. So the effect of a spike is much higher than if the entire set was never-ending and conducted over time. It is also way more complex because the field isn't the same in every tournament (again, for purely competitive reasons, you'd be right if literally the same 125 tee'd it up every week. But they don't. Its an open system.) You'd also be right if golf purses increased at the rate of inflation.

 

So if I'm an aspiring golfer, which is more appealing:

 

1989:

Learn to swing out of my shoes and bomb all the time. Go for everything. High variance. Win twice a year, and win $360k-ish.

 

Now:

Learn to swing out of my shoes and bomb all the time. Go for everything. High variance. Win twice a year, and win $3.9m-ish.

[Shilgy]

Pine, earlier you stated that the players before the Tiger era just wanted to make cuts and could finish well on the money list. If they are using the same formulas for money then nothing has changed. If every player makes ten times as much then the finish at the end of the year is the same. You could run the numbers for the 1989 tour with today's dollars and the money list would be the same order.

[Sean2]

I believe they have tournaments for golfers who like to use classic equipment, perhaps those of you who think that the current equipment has gone too far could go back to persimmon drivers/woods, and irons that make today's blades look like GI irons?

[dunn]

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.

 

Go back a bit further John Daly topped the driving chart in 1992. He would be 160th on the 2017 season. The second longest that year would have been the 7th shortest on tour in 2017.

 

25 years.

I think it has more to do with the players conditioning today. Think back years ago when many of the golfers were very lanky and not very muscular. Now they are often fine-tune machines on workout regimens that make them very golf physically fit. Dustin Johnson is a perfect example. He is not only long and lanky, but he is very strong compared to Golfers back 25 years ago. There's only so much equipment can do for a player, you have to swing the club. Some in here think that you could hand a person without any golf experience today's irons and all of a sudden they be shooting scratch golf. This just isn't true, it takes personal dedication and practice no matter what clubs you are using.

 

Good post -- gonna let you in on a little secret. Golfers "BITD" were pretty fit, but certainly weren't the lanky physiques you see today. A couple examples.

 

True story. Arnold Palmer was in South Africa for a tournament, and there was some off time where he, Gary Player, and a few others went to a metal refinery that did a lot of gold smelting, etc. There was a stack of solid gold bars, and the "host/guide" told the group that if anyone could lift one of the bars with one hand, he could keep it. Arnie did it with no problem.

 

And Gary Player himself was a physical fitness afficianado, which came about from "touring" with Frank Stranahan, who was very wealthy as his father was the founder of Champion Spark Plug Co. This wealth provided Stranahan with the ability to focus on golf, which he played both as a world class amateur and a professional. Since the pros usually drove from tournament to tournament, Player became a travel companion with Stranahan, and became focused on his strength conditioning, as he toted his weights around with him.

 

Player himself could do amazing things in regards to strength. He could hold a golf club at the butt end of the grip with his arm extended away from his body, holding the club with only 2 fingers. Think it's easy???? Try it sometime, and do it with people watching....you'll quickly understand the strength necessary to do this.

 

What has made the difference today is that the materials from which modern clubs are composed has allowed the modern player to swing out of his/her shoes without fear of what might happen to the ball. While Nicklaus (known in small circles in college golf as "the pig" because he grunted every time his hit his driver as hard as he possibly could) could (and did) swing harder than most anyone else, he also was understanding enough of the golf swing to hold off the face to have the high fade that won him just about everything at least once.

 

I'm certainly not advocating that today's tour players revert to hickory shafts, wooden headed woods, and simple "heavy" steel shafts, or that they should play a balata or feathery ball. What I am saying is that without the advent of the technology, they simply couldn't swing they way that they do and get the results that they get.

 

Tennis went through this era, when players began to play with very large headed rackets made of aluminum. One of the results of this change was an immediate increase in elbow related injuries and inflammations. As tennis tech advanced, different materials were utilized to minimize the vibration made when the ball contacted the racket as well as the additional torque from contact further away from the hands, due to the larger surface of the racket face.

 

Today, we see it necessary to be a huge server, or not be able to compete as well.

 

So, while I certainly agree that the advances in tech with regards to golf equipment make it more enjoyable (or easier) for the average amateur, it has truly made some of the greatest golf courses obsolete, since they were designed with different playing parameters in place.

 

I agree that if courses were set up with smaller landing areas, and more severe rough if you missed the fairway and/or green, where you were literally penalized a half to full shot for inaccuracy, that these courses would once again be exceptionally relevant. They might actually be a little more difficult to score with the modern ball, since it does not spin as much as balata, and greens would be more difficult to hold in most conditions with any thing except the perfectly struck shot played to the proper position.

 

It is this last point that I believe has been lost. I know the tour players can hit most all the shots that modern equipment and course set ups require, but.....they can also get away with more less than perfectly struck and/or placed shots than ever before.

 

My

 

YMMV

norman too was pretty fit.....but it wasnt as normal as it is today......long gone are pudgy dudes yoi ised to see tons of ( they still have a few) but its totally flip flopped from yesteryear

[pinestreetgolf]

Pine, earlier you stated that the players before the Tiger era just wanted to make cuts and could finish well on the money list. If they are using the same formulas for money then nothing has changed. If every player makes ten times as much then the finish at the end of the year is the same. You could run the numbers for the 1989 tour with today's dollars and the money list would be the same order.

 

As i said in my response, that would only be true if every player played every event. If the money list was a ranking of percent of money a player won compared to the total available money that individual could have won in the events they played, you'd be right.

 

EDIT -

 

We should go back in time and ask Joey Sindelar (3rd place on the money list, 1988) why he didn't live like a king. After all, he made $800k which, relatively speaking, is the exact same thing as 3rd place Dustin Johnson making $8.43 million. Why we're at it, we should ask Venturi why he had to live out of his car. According to the percentages, he's made more than Jason Day!

 

I'm joking, but the point is the same. The reward for risk now is much higher than it was then - you can talk in percentages, but that isn't what anyone actually cares about whose earning the cash. In 1989 you won a few tournaments and it was a nice start to your career. In 2017 you win two tournaments and you never have to work again.

 

Which one makes you want to bomb the dogleg to try for 65?

[Golfjack]

Basically, to really end the argument we should all play with butter blades made with the same spec, because any customization would be an improvement. Any fairway wood would be too forgiving, so just play persimmon ones with a steel shaft (for consistency). Or solid plastic ones for even more consistency. Make it kind of like Formula 1 where everyone operates in a set of much stricter rules. It's getting too easy for the pro's, but still too hard for amateurs.

 

BTW as far as pudgy guys, Rahm is kinda packing on the lbs it seems.

[pinestreetgolf]

Basically, to really end the argument we should all play with butter blades made with the same spec, because any customization would be an improvement. Any fairway wood would be too forgiving, so just play persimmon ones with a steel shaft (for consistency). Or solid plastic ones for even more consistency. Make it kind of like Formula 1 where everyone operates in a set of much stricter rules. It's getting too easy for the pro's, but still too hard for amateurs.

 

BTW as far as pudgy guys, Rahm is kinda packing on the lbs it seems.

 

I use actual kitchen knives shafted with construction rebar. Im thinking of re shafting - the rebar is a little weak for my speed and the steak knives are ballooning on me.

 

Golf is too easy. Give me a break.

 

[Golfjack]

Basically, to really end the argument we should all play with butter blades made with the same spec, because any customization would be an improvement. Any fairway wood would be too forgiving, so just play persimmon ones with a steel shaft (for consistency). Or solid plastic ones for even more consistency. Make it kind of like Formula 1 where everyone operates in a set of much stricter rules. It's getting too easy for the pro's, but still too hard for amateurs.

 

BTW as far as pudgy guys, Rahm is kinda packing on the lbs it seems.

 

I use actual kitchen knives shafted with construction rebar. Im thinking of re shafting - the rebar is a little weak for my speed and the steak knives are ballooning on me.

 

Golf is too easy. Give me a break.

I find that the French handmade butter knives really give me the ball flight I want. Attached to a classic English walking stick with a bloodhound head at the grip, it's all the club I need to pure it as a baby fade onto a 180 yard par 3.

 

#golfiseasy