When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[Uhit]

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.

 

So, you think it would help if a smaller guy has to play a club, where the heel sits on the ground at address,

and a taller golfer has to play the same club, where the toe sits on the ground at address?

 

Great idea, that would favor the player, who has the body, and arm sizes, that perfectly fit to the standard.

 

...same with weight of the club, and flex, and bend profile of the shaft...

 

...and last, but not least the grip size and feel.

 

-

 

Real horse sh.t if you ask me...

 

...so I guess, that you were just making fun?

 

However, not everyone may recognize this on a international forum.

[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.

 

So, you think it would help if a smaller guy has to play a club, where the heel sits on the ground at address,

and a taller golfer has to play the same club, where the toe sits on the ground at address?

 

Great idea, that would favor the player, who has the body, and arm sizes, that perfectly fit to the standard.

 

...same with weight of the club, and flex, and bend profile of the shaft...

 

...and last, but not least the grip size and feel.

 

-

 

Real horse sh.t if you ask me...

 

...so I guess, that you were just making fun?

 

However, not everyone may recognize this on a international forum.

I was making fun of course lol. It's just that one thing that is an advantage for one is a disadvantage for another. The twist face could be pretty bad for push slicers who hit off the toe.

[rawdog]

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

 

I for one, also find golf to be too easy. Write your congressmen, shield your wives and children. Stop the madness.

 

I'd rather read some more "What will stop the decline of golf?" threads...

[bladehunter]

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

 

I for one, also find golf to be too easy. Write your congressmen, shield your wives and children. Stop the madness.

 

I'd rather read some more "What will stop the decline of golf?" threads...

 

 

Te supposed decline is just the artificial bubble bursting...Just a reset is all.. and a small one at that ..more like a stop of growth.. To push for more growth now just means we have to change the game to appease the un interested groups that are left ( top golf etc) .... for no other purpose than top level profit.

[sdandrea]

We could do the NASCAR deal and restrict all the pros to consistent set of ball and club specs, yes? Everybody has to use hickory blades and woods. 100cc max club head size for woods. Feathery ball. Let's DO this!

[new2g0lf]

^^^

 

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.

 

Most of these kids on Tour likely never swung a persimmon driver, those days are long gone, let them go.

[North Butte]

I doubt many Tour players have ever hit a hickory-shafted driver, either. And I'm virtually certain none of them ever hit a Guttie or Featherie ball.

[Bye]

None of the gains in club head speed would have been possible if the ball had not changed. Some guys had some really good speed back then but you had to be a good ball striker. Also the hard bit wasn't controlling the curvature of the ball it was stopping it ballooning. Down wind was fine, it was in to wind or when it was blowing against your natural shape when it got difficult.

 

I have no issue with the frying pans and shovels we use now, a golf ball will last 2-3 rounds if you can find it every time. A screw to fix a shaft in! I think my mind may have been altered by having to burn glue to get shafts out. Some of the features on the new gear is amazing if you like tinkering.

 

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[North Butte]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

[Bye]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

 

Exactly! A full scale roll back would be easier if the Tour style balls were only used by 10% of golfers. There are a lot more people to p**s off now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[asw7576]

When a single person has over 100 golf sticks .... this person has gone too far, i think.

[gvogel]

When has equipment gone too far?

 

My answer would be that it has gone too far when golf courses are too long to be walked, comfortably.

 

Oh, you say that you take a cart?

 

Well, then I say equipment has gone to far for you. (Unless you have a medical reason.)

[rawdog]

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

 

I for one, also find golf to be too easy. Write your congressmen, shield your wives and children. Stop the madness.

 

I'd rather read some more "What will stop the decline of golf?" threads...

 

 

Te supposed decline is just the artificial bubble bursting...Just a reset is all.. and a small one at that ..more like a stop of growth.. To push for more growth now just means we have to change the game to appease the un interested groups that are left ( top golf etc) .... for no other purpose than top level profit.

 

"The Sky is Falling"

 

No, no it's not.

 

Carry on!

[hybrid25]

I embrace club/ball advancement, and look forward to trying/testing them out. It's part of why I play golf.

[rawdog]

I embrace club/ball advancement, and look forward to trying/testing them out. It's part of why I play golf.

 

But I learned through other threads that clubs haven't improved, while the ball has improved too much...

 

Oh, and not to EVER wear a hat indoors.

[NRJyzr]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

 

 

Oh good lord.... /rolleyes

 

Titleist did not create anything. There were at least two manufacturers there ahead of them, who put out solid core balls that weren't based on IP infringement.

 

Let's not ruin this thread further with worship services for the Church of Titleist...

[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.

 

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?

So essentially you are arguing the opposite of most folks. Most say that the players of the past HAD to play to win because that was the only way to make real money. And that the players of today are complacent and happy to make cuts because they still make a $1m.

[Bad9]

When has equipment gone too far?

 

My answer would be that it has gone too far when golf courses are too long to be walked, comfortably.

 

Oh, you say that you take a cart?

 

Well, then I say equipment has gone to far for you. (Unless you have a medical reason.)

 

All of the courses I have been on that can't be walked comfortably is because of the distances from the green to the next tee box and not because of the playing length of the holes.

[Uhit]

When a single person has over 100 golf sticks .... this person has gone too far, i think.

 

You mean, I should stop buying additional golf sticks in future? :blush:

 

What happens, if I count my golf sticks, and find out, that I have already gone to far?? :blush2:

 

Hey, for me, golf AND golf equipment is fun! :golfer: :to_become_senile: :derisive:

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

Renovating my simulator room right now, you can never go to far. Taking out the adjacent wall to make it twice the size. There's never enough when it comes to golf.

[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?

So essentially you are arguing the opposite of most folks. Most say that the players of the past HAD to play to win because that was the only way to make real money. And that the players of today are complacent and happy to make cuts because they still make a $1m.

 

No, I'm arguing it makes more sense to go for

Broke when the winner get $8m then when the winner gets $1m because your bank doesn't care what relative percent of the prize purse you make.

[Bye]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

 

 

Oh good lord.... /rolleyes

 

Titleist did not create anything. There were at least two manufacturers there ahead of them, who put out solid core balls that weren't based on IP infringement.

 

Let's not ruin this thread further with worship services for the Church of Titleist...

 

You’ve missed the point.

 

If the Maxfli Revolution has been any good and their factory had not gone down in an earthquake Titleist would have been in some bother. The HT balata was better than Titleist’s version.

[farmer]

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?

So essentially you are arguing the opposite of most folks. Most say that the players of the past HAD to play to win because that was the only way to make real money. And that the players of today are complacent and happy to make cuts because they still make a $1m.

Back in the day, yes, you did have to win to make real money. There were only 60 exempt players, the 125th money winner was folding shirts in a pro shop somewhere, and they would wear those awful Amana hats for fifty dollars a week. All the young guys on here should read Frank Beard's book.

[NRJyzr]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

 

 

Oh good lord.... /rolleyes

 

Titleist did not create anything. There were at least two manufacturers there ahead of them, who put out solid core balls that weren't based on IP infringement.

 

Let's not ruin this thread further with worship services for the Church of Titleist...

 

You’ve missed the point.

 

If the Maxfli Revolution has been any good and their factory had not gone down in an earthquake Titleist would have been in some bother. The HT balata was better than Titleist’s version.

 

No, I didn't miss the point.

 

I would agree the HT was better, the limited amount I've played each. And, the Revolution was quite good.

 

But I wasn't referring to Maxfli at all, but Strata and Bridgestone.

 

And I didn't miss the point, that being "money" LOL

 

Didn't know about the earthquake, though (effect on golf, that is). Relative latecomer to golf, for my age... Did Kobe handle that much of Dunlop's production in the 90s?

[Sean2]

If modern day equipment has made golf so easy, we wouldn't be posting opinions on a golf forum, we would be playing on Tour.

[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.

 

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?

So essentially you are arguing the opposite of most folks. Most say that the players of the past HAD to play to win because that was the only way to make real money. And that the players of today are complacent and happy to make cuts because they still make a $1m.

Back in the day, yes, you did have to win to make real money. There were only 60 exempt players, the 125th money winner was folding shirts in a pro shop somewhere, and they would wear those awful Amana hats for fifty dollars a week. All the young guys on here should read Frank Beard's book.

Luckily for them they were facing only players from the US in general. If they went to 60 exempt today there would be a ton more turnover year to year.

 

PS I remember watching Beard on tour in Minnesota in the late 60's.

[Bye]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

 

 

Oh good lord.... /rolleyes

 

Titleist did not create anything. There were at least two manufacturers there ahead of them, who put out solid core balls that weren't based on IP infringement.

 

Let's not ruin this thread further with worship services for the Church of Titleist...

 

You’ve missed the point.

 

If the Maxfli Revolution has been any good and their factory had not gone down in an earthquake Titleist would have been in some bother. The HT balata was better than Titleist’s version.

 

No, I didn't miss the point.

 

I would agree the HT was better, the limited amount I've played each. And, the Revolution was quite good.

 

But I wasn't referring to Maxfli at all, but Strata and Bridgestone.

 

And I didn't miss the point, that being "money" LOL

 

Didn't know about the earthquake, though (effect on golf, that is). Relative latecomer to golf, for my age...

 

Anyone that liked the HT ball is ok with me.

 

Never saw one from Bridgestone, the Strata was a good ball but was way behind the Pro V1 in distance, it spun so much. A friend of mine was given about 12 dozen of them about a month before we got the V1. I think he still has them.

 

I always though the Revolution was the first to market.

 

 

 

 

[Conrad1953]

Why even have this argument? The game has changed. Anyone who still wants to play antique

golf still can if they want to.....and I know some who do. Nothing wrong with it.....but at the high

end competitive level antique golf is not gonna win any money or secure Tour cards.

[NRJyzr]

Anyone that liked the HT ball is ok with me.

 

Never saw one from Bridgestone, the Strata was a good ball but was way behind the Pro V1 in distance, it spun so much. A friend of mine was given about 12 dozen of them about a month before we got the V1. I think he still has them.

 

I always though the Revolution was the first to market.

 

I still have some HT-100s lying around. I bought several dozen from ebay, NIB, several years ago, the urethane cover versions. Then found some "genuine" balata HT-100s, which appeared to be Asian market, and pretty new. The urethane HT were a ton more durable than the asian market balatas, LOL.

 

I thought i still had two or three dozen, based on usage, but can only find one box of them. :(

 

I'm pretty sure the Strata was the first. The early Stratas may have been hyper spinny and short (no idea myself), but by the time they got to the Strata Tour Pro, they were fairly decent IMHO. Ball tests from around the solid core revolution (no pun intended) showed they were fairly similar. The Pro V1 was even a bit spinnier off a 7 iron than the Strata Tour Pro. If Spalding had the money, they could have made a serious dent in the market in the 90s.

 

But they didn't, and they didn't. <shrug>

 

The original Rev ball *was* a bit of a spinner (have a sleeve of them, also). The A10 and M3 Red/Black were better that way. Or the Slazenger Players. :)

 

The earliest balltest I remember had the Tour Balata, the Maxfli Elite, and even the Hogan Balata. Great fun. :)

[Sean2]

I embrace club/ball advancement, and look forward to trying/testing them out. It's part of why I play golf.

 

But I learned through other threads that clubs haven't improved, while the ball has improved too much...

 

Oh, and not to EVER wear a hat indoors.

 

Or jeans on the golf course. :-)