Who Said That Ya Can Never Go Back......

[iteachgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

>

> If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

>

> It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

 

It absolutely helps. They are are able to obtain max ballspeed over a much larger area, they go much straighter, and because they are lighter can be swung faster. For the average golfer the difference is huge. The better the player is and the more they hit the center the less the difference will be

[bladehunter]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

> >

> > If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

> >

> > It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

>

> It absolutely helps. They are are able to obtain max ballspeed over a much larger area, they go much straighter, and because they are lighter can be swung faster. For the average golfer the difference is huge. The better the player is and the more they hit the center the less the difference will be

 

Well. I do agree with that. But it still leaves the question open as to who would a swap back in time effect most ? Looks like you agree that there are some tour guys who would struggle. And some who wouldn’t ?

 

If not then why don’t we see bifurcation where the tour and elite am level goes to a smaller head for smaller sweetspot and a ball that spins more for less than optimal launch conditions?

[new2g0lf]

> @bladehunter said:

> Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

>

> If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

>

> It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

Tech helps us average golfers a lot more than it does the pro's. Pro's can swing harder with more confidence that they will catch enough of the sweet spot where as we need all the help we can get. Most of the pro's opt for the smaller, less tech head when they are available.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > @iteachgolf said:

> > > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > > In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

> > > > > Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

> > > > >

> > > > > Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

> > > > > 80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

> > > > >

> > > > > Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

> > > >

> > > > This article goes to your point I believe?

> > > >

> > > > https://www.google.com/amp/amp.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If not, and I’m totally off the reservation and into the trees, just patronize me and I’ll go away??

> > > >

> > > > I hope that you’re having a great season DL?

> > > >

> > > > My best,

> > > > Richard

> > >

> > > Both ignoring how much the ball has changed. If you think the longest driver would average 275 with persimmon and a modern ball I’d love to bet a massive sum of money with you. On a solidly struck drive they’d produce the same ballspeed as a modern driver swung at the same clubhead speed. Also ignoring how modern agronomy and conditioning has changed how much roll they get on your.

> >

> > Don't persimmon heads have a lower COR than modern drivers, though? I recall reading (probably on this site) that it was around 0.77 with persimmon drivers/fibre inserts. Would the same clubhead speed actually produce the same ball speed?

> > That said, I agree with you that the modern ball is so different from the old ones I used as a junior. I'd actually be interested to see a comparison of modern balls and old balls hit with both modern drivers and persimmon. In particular, I'd like to see how far the old two piece rocks (e.g. Wilson Ultras) perform on both types of drivers.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Go look at the smash factor produced by Rickie with persimmon. I’ve gotten similar regularly.

 

I missed that. 1.49 with persimmon! That must have been a sweet strike. So that suggests a COR near the maximum allowed (though I suppose I should be thinking in terms of CT now).

With either COR or CT with persimmon, I wonder how consistent it would be from driver to driver. I played persimmon when I was younger, but I never heard talk about "hot-faced" drivers back then; could COR have varied according to the quality of persimmon, or (more likely?) the type of insert? Sorry, just wondering out aloud more than anything.

I see you still play persimmon sometimes; so do I, with modern balls. I was surprised by how close my best drives with persimmon were to my good drives with my modern driver. On the other hand, the difference in distance between poor persimmon strikes and poor strikes with my modern driver varied hugely, but that was expected.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @smashdn said:

> Food for thought. Watch and see what you think.

>

>

 

Great video. I do wish they'd shown individual stats for each different type of old ball, though. And thrown in a wound surlyn ball and old two-piece rock for comparison.

Mike Clayton makes some great comments, especially about this being a new era of golf.

[lumberman2462]

A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

 

You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @lumberman2462 said:

> A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

>

> You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

 

I can believe it. I tried to persuade my regular golfing mates to have a round in which we all played persimmon. The oldest guy, who started back in the persimmon era, was into it, but the other two, who took up golf around 2006~7, were only interested in it on paper. If you've only ever hit massive headed drivers, I imagine the tiny persimmon heads would be very intimidating.

[bladehunter]

> @new2g0lf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

> >

> > If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

> >

> > It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

> Tech helps us average golfers a lot more than it does the pro's. Pro's can swing harder with more confidence that they will catch enough of the sweet spot where as we need all the help we can get. Most of the pro's opt for the smaller, less tech head when they are available.

 

Almost no pro today plays less than 460cc. And when I say small I’m talking around 280-320cc.

 

 

[new2g0lf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @new2g0lf said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

> > >

> > > If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

> > >

> > > It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

> > Tech helps us average golfers a lot more than it does the pro's. Pro's can swing harder with more confidence that they will catch enough of the sweet spot where as we need all the help we can get. Most of the pro's opt for the smaller, less tech head when they are available.

>

> Almost no pro today plays less than 460cc. And when I say small I’m talking around 280-320cc.

>

>

I don't know about today, but I know Phil recently was playing the smaller head version of Callaways drivers, but it was like 420 - 440 cc. A lot of guys were playing the smaller head version of the Titleist drivers. Closest to the 280 - 320c was when Phil added Frankenwood to his bag.

[gvogel]

> @lumberman2462 said:

> A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

>

> You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

 

Ha ha. I played in hickory shaft tournaments for 4 or 5 years. Misses were severely punished. I remembered what a duck hook was (never hit that shot with modern stuff, but I sure did growing up with persimmon). The overall weight of the driver started playing havoc with my back, particularly during a 2-day event with a practice round before hand. I'm glad I had the experience.

[Forged4ever]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @lumberman2462 said:

> > A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

> >

> > You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

>

> I can believe it. I tried to persuade my regular golfing mates to have a round in which we all played persimmon. The oldest guy, who started back in the persimmon era, was into it, but the other two, who took up golf around 2006~7, were only interested in it on paper. If you've only ever hit massive headed drivers, I imagine the tiny persimmon heads would be very intimidating.

 

We have an annual “vintage” tourney at Oakmont and all the clubs have to be Pre-1982(Staff Fg 17’s & before) and the tees are set at 6920-6940yds, with a Par 71, the yardages and par for the 1973 US Open(versus current Pro/Top Am events par of 70 and yardage of 7254yds). It’s a ton of fun and I used to start practicing with my clubs about a month before and then lie my a** off and tell em that I just dug em outa the closet the day before??

 

No one believed me as they’d seen me hittin and Playin em, lol?

 

That’s one of the events that I miss most cuz I’ll in all likelihood never be at that level again to Play(2.4~ below). Who knows, miracles happen, lol?

 

Stay well Brother?

RP

[mocokid]

> @lowheel said:

> > @cardoustie said:

> > I am sad to say I had one of those drivers. Game changers vs persimmon. I stopped wearing out the high toe spot on persimmon

> > These suckers were highly sought after back in my early teens.

> > Especially the gen 2 burner versions that came out with the Ti Sandvik shafts. Before the Big Bertha came (then the GBB and BBB) this is what every top golfer was using bar none

>

> the Big bertha was the biggest game changer for me back then.i was killing that thing even hitting it off the deck. I would venture to say 80% of tour pros were using it

 

^^^^ absolutely positively CORRECT, the BB was the game changer, the 1st gen of TM Pittsburgh persimmon were marginally better than persimmon itself. the BB (Memphis shaft) edition with cord grip, gave the weekend guy a 230+ drive most of the time, whereas with persimmon if he nutted it= 220, but more likely his off center hits were sub 200 yds. Too bad the USGA did not say OK let's not go any bigger than the BB size head (whatever it was) it was so forgiving and even a weekend warrior could hit it off the deck.

 

[Ferguson]

> @Forged4ever said:

> > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > @lumberman2462 said:

> > > A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

> > >

> > > You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

> >

> > I can believe it. I tried to persuade my regular golfing mates to have a round in which we all played persimmon. The oldest guy, who started back in the persimmon era, was into it, but the other two, who took up golf around 2006~7, were only interested in it on paper. If you've only ever hit massive headed drivers, I imagine the tiny persimmon heads would be very intimidating.

>

> We have an annual “vintage” tourney at Oakmont and all the clubs have to be Pre-1982(Staff Fg 17’s & before) and the tees are set at 6920-6940yds, with a Par 71, the yardages and par for the 1973 US Open(versus current Pro/Top Am events par of 70 and yardage of 7254yds). It’s a ton of fun and I used to start practicing with my clubs about a month before and then lie my a** off and tell em that I just dug em outa the closet the day before??

>

> No one believed me as they’d seen me hittin and Playin em, lol?

>

> That’s one of the events that I miss most cuz I’ll in all likelihood never be at that level again to Play(2.4~ below). Who knows, miracles happen, lol?

>

> Stay well Brother?

> RP

 

 

Miracles happen every single day.

[iteachgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @iteachgolf said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

> > >

> > > If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

> > >

> > > It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

> >

> > It absolutely helps. They are are able to obtain max ballspeed over a much larger area, they go much straighter, and because they are lighter can be swung faster. For the average golfer the difference is huge. The better the player is and the more they hit the center the less the difference will be

>

> Well. I do agree with that. But it still leaves the question open as to who would a swap back in time effect most ? Looks like you agree that there are some tour guys who would struggle. And some who wouldn’t ?

>

> If not then why don’t we see bifurcation where the tour and elite am level goes to a smaller head for smaller sweetspot and a ball that spins more for less than optimal launch conditions?

 

Why would they change the rules? What would be the point? It wouldn’t change things much at all, would piss off all manufacturers, likely resulting in lawsuits, and waste a bunch of time and money.

 

Very few tour guys would struggle. Again they hit 180cc fairway woods just fine. Tiger set records with a wound ball and a 260cc steel shafted driver. You guys are underestimating how good these guys are and how quickly they’d adapt. I have guys who can hit a 17* iron 270 yards carry

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @Forged4ever said:

> > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > @lumberman2462 said:

> > > A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

> > >

> > > You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

> >

> > I can believe it. I tried to persuade my regular golfing mates to have a round in which we all played persimmon. The oldest guy, who started back in the persimmon era, was into it, but the other two, who took up golf around 2006~7, were only interested in it on paper. If you've only ever hit massive headed drivers, I imagine the tiny persimmon heads would be very intimidating.

>

> We have an annual “vintage” tourney at Oakmont and all the clubs have to be Pre-1982(Staff Fg 17’s & before) and the tees are set at 6920-6940yds, with a Par 71, the yardages and par for the 1973 US Open(versus current Pro/Top Am events par of 70 and yardage of 7254yds). It’s a ton of fun and I used to start practicing with my clubs about a month before and then lie my a** off and tell em that I just dug em outa the closet the day before??

>

> No one believed me as they’d seen me hittin and Playin em, lol?

>

> That’s one of the events that I miss most cuz I’ll in all likelihood never be at that level again to Play(2.4~ below). Who knows, miracles happen, lol?

>

> Stay well Brother?

> RP

 

That event sounds like a lot of fun.

Which is harder, the old setup with old clubs, or the new setup with new clubs?

Answer: They're both bl**dy hard!

 

You keep staying well. Those Srixons are waiting to be hit.

[bladehunter]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @iteachgolf said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

> > > >

> > > > If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

> > > >

> > > > It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.

> > >

> > > It absolutely helps. They are are able to obtain max ballspeed over a much larger area, they go much straighter, and because they are lighter can be swung faster. For the average golfer the difference is huge. The better the player is and the more they hit the center the less the difference will be

> >

> > Well. I do agree with that. But it still leaves the question open as to who would a swap back in time effect most ? Looks like you agree that there are some tour guys who would struggle. And some who wouldn’t ?

> >

> > If not then why don’t we see bifurcation where the tour and elite am level goes to a smaller head for smaller sweetspot and a ball that spins more for less than optimal launch conditions?

>

> Why would they change the rules? What would be the point? It wouldn’t change things much at all, would **** off all manufacturers, likely resulting in lawsuits, and waste a bunch of time and money.

>

> Very few tour guys would struggle. Again they hit 180cc fairway woods just fine. Tiger set records with a wound ball and a 260cc steel shafted driver. You guys are underestimating how good these guys are and how quickly they’d adapt. I have guys who can hit a 17* iron 270 yards carry

 

I’m not underestimating that fact although I I know some are. So I concede that point for the larger argument. I know it because I’m one of those guys. It’s poor form to post distances here ( so I’m told ). But let’s just say I can move it. Several here know it first hand. I’m also a relative newbie to the game which accounts for some of ( not all ) my ignorance at times.

 

My point on that is that I didn’t experience all of the distance war/ changes first hand. I started playing in 2014. Although I watched and was around golf since around 1990. I never played. So when i ask something it’s from the point of view of that guy plus knwowledge of history of clubs. ( I read a lot ) . I hope that made sense ?

 

Which is why the question hangs in my head. While I agree that rolling back ball and driver wouldn’t effect big hitters as much. And scores may not suffer much either , I can’t help but ask .... then why all the course lengthening , remodels etc to accommodate the longer distance ?

 

Take your 17 degree hybrid example. How far would that player hit a mp14 2 iron ? My guess ? I’d say 245-250 off a tee in the air. Which is a big difference. Now how many times does he flush that 2 vs the hybrid ? I’d say 7 of 10 with the 2 and 9 of 10 with the hybrid ... sound reasonable ? Then we bring in launch and decent angle. I’m sure it’s more for both with the hybrid. So he’s holding par 5greens with that hybrid more often.

 

My point. It’s a cumulative effect. It’s not just driver. The shorter hitter if given a small driver a set of blades 2-pw etc. May score same. But. He’d work twice as hard to get it. And he wouldn’t get it as often.what We’d see is another dominant player arise is my guess. The long hitter would again know his full advantage.

 

Do I have a point ? lol. Not sure. I guess my point is that it’s about more than just driver ... the new gear game as a whole helps the short and/or crooked guy disproportionately in my opinion. Therefore creating the parity we sometimes see at the pro level today. Again. My Johnny come lately opinion.

 

 

[Golfnutgalen]

> @smashdn said:

> Food for thought. Watch and see what you think.

>

>

Those numbers are insane. Here they are posted converted to yards instead of meters:

 

New Driver+New Balls: Club speed119.8, Ball speed: 175, Spin 2326, Carry 288.5, Total 308

New Driver+Old Balls: Club speed119.8, Ball speed: 172.1, Spin 3080, Carry 272, Total 291

Old Driver+New Balls: Club speed116.7, Ball speed: 168.8, Spin 2968, Carry 262, Total 286.7

Old Driver+Old Balls: Club speed114.2, Ball speed: 164.2, Spin 4166, Carry 245.8, Total 256.3

 

Of course I'm sure he could optimize those numbers a bit with fitting and swing adjustments. The pga tour numbers posted earlier showed a 39 yard increase in average distance since 1980 and this chart almost exactly reflects that. The chart also shows that the golf ball alone is not the culprit as Jack Nicklaus has bemoaned. I do wish they went went with one year instead of a bunch of mix and matching.

 

[farmer]

Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

[bladehunter]

> @farmer said:

> Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

 

It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

 

Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

 

To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

[Shilgy]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > Baseball has progressed, Football has progressed, Tennis has progressed.....Why not golf? I do not want to go back to the Feathery ball....If Old Tom Morris had a new Taylormade Iron, he would have used it!

>

> I am troubled by this statement.

>

> Baseball still uses wood bats at the major league level, even though titanium bats are made and are used in high school. Baseball is an interesting topic. You have baseball, and then you have softball. Softball is widely played recreationally. I take it that the larger ball is easier to hit for non-elite players. But at the major league level, the bat remains wood, and the ball is adjusted every so often so that major league ball parks are still relevant.

>

> Consider what would have happened if baseball bats and baseballs had changed with technology. Baseball parks would have had to be expanded considerably, or home runs would have become so plentiful that singles, doubles and field play would have become irrelevant. With outfield walls at 600', the intimacy of a great ball park would have ceased. No one would want to sit in the outfield.

>

> One of the great things about Augusta National, and one of the things that was absent at Erin Hills, is a sense of intimacy of the course. You can sit behind 12 tee and watch play on 11, 12 and the tee shots on 13. You can hear roars from a few holes in the distance. But as we can see from scoring averages at 13 and 15, modern technology is reducing the risk reward at those holes, which used to be so important to the tournament.

>

> You can be against a ball/driver roll back, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. At some point, it has to happen in order to keep the Masters the tournament that it should be.

 

In baseball the bats are different-the gloves are different-the balls are said to be different-the mound is a different height-even the uniforms make a difference. Same with football, same with tennis, same with hockey. All of those have big changes over the years.

[MidwestGolfBum]

> @lumberman2462 said:

> A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

>

> You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

 

We have a couple nights a year where we go out and play with persimmon and as somebody who has almost always had metal woods in my life, outside of learning the game with my dad's old clubs, I really enjoy it. Amazing how many of the guys despise having to hit them because it's "so much harder". There is a group of us that have actually considered ordering a set of hickories for a few nights a year to go out and play with only them and a softer, modern ball just to change things up but that hasn't happened... yet.

[iteachgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @farmer said:

> > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

>

> It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

>

> Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

>

> To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

 

I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

[bladehunter]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @farmer said:

> > > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

> >

> > It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

> >

> > Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> > The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

> >

> > To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

>

> I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

 

Lol. I suppose. We do mostly agree. I just feel like there’s a measure of difference it would make for some. But I guess I also agree as well because I know I could score the same with a smaller driver as I did so for a while before getting used to a giant head.

 

 

[iteachgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @iteachgolf said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @farmer said:

> > > > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

> > >

> > > It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

> > >

> > > Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> > > The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

> > >

> > > To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

> >

> > I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

>

> Lol. I suppose. We do mostly agree. I just feel like there’s a measure of difference it would make for some. But I guess I also agree as well because I know I could score the same with a smaller driver as I did so for a while before getting used to a giant head.

>

>

 

https://imgur.com/a/uYrieie

 

This was 10 minutes ago and first swing of the day into a hurting wind. I might hit my driver 280ish in those same conditions. It’s a difference but I’m not close to as good as those guys and I’d shoot lower scores from 6800 with persimmon than I would 7200 with a modern driver. Over 7,000 and it’d affect my scores but I’m not a long hitter

[gvogel]

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > @lumberman2462 said:

> > A few years ago I was running our Tuesday night Men's golf league for a few weeks. I dug around and found an old Cleveland Classic persimmon, a Wilson Whale and a First Filght - I even found a a lefty persimmon from an older member. I put them all on the tee of a short par 5 and made it a requirement that everyone had to tee off using one.

> >

> > You guys would not believe the amount of whining and complaining (mostly from the youngsters) when everyone got back to the bar....and it was a scramble.

>

> We have a couple nights a year where we go out and play with persimmon and as somebody who has almost always had metal woods in my life, outside of learning the game with my dad's old clubs, I really enjoy it. Amazing how many of the guys despise having to hit them because it's "so much harder". There is a group of us that have actually considered ordering a set of hickories for a few nights a year to go out and play with only them and a softer, modern ball just to change things up but that hasn't happened... yet.

 

Go ahead and do it - you only need a brassie, a few irons and a niblick to have fun. Play from the senior tees.

 

The first couple of years that I played the Vermont Hickory Open there was a 7 club limit. I thought that was a great idea. Chick Evans won the US Open and US Amateur with 7 clubs. That would keep your hickory expense down. By the way, I found that practicing and playing with hickories made the modern game easier for me.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

If we can't definitively say that modern pros would struggle mightily with the clubs of yesteryear, then how will we be able to conclude that the Legends were much more skilled than modern pros and shout down anyone who might disagree? I mean, if we can't say, "yeah, and so-and-so did it with the old clubs, so he was much better", then we will have to blame some other piece of equipment, and nobody does that every time he opens his mouth . . .

[starsail85]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @iteachgolf said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

> > > >

> > > > It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

> > > >

> > > > Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> > > > The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

> > > >

> > > > To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

> > >

> > > I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

> >

> > Lol. I suppose. We do mostly agree. I just feel like there’s a measure of difference it would make for some. But I guess I also agree as well because I know I could score the same with a smaller driver as I did so for a while before getting used to a giant head.

> >

> >

>

> https://imgur.com/a/uYrieie

>

> This was 10 minutes ago and first swing of the day into a hurting wind. I might hit my driver 280ish in those same conditions. It’s a difference but I’m not close to as good as those guys and I’d shoot lower scores from 6800 with persimmon than I would 7200 with a modern driver. Over 7,000 and it’d affect my scores but I’m not a long hitter

 

 

 

How do we explain the 1.49 smash ? I’m Abit out of touch but is 1.49 still the max? Or is it 1.52 with a toe hit?

 

I was told by titleist a long time ago that persimmon or old steel/titanium drivers before they started thinning the faces have a COR of .77

 

By about 2001 many drivers up and above .81 and up to the limit of .83

 

If the COR is lower on the persimmon how to we explain the smash ? Is it related to a heavier driver ? Heavier head/shaft etc ?

 

[bladehunter]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @iteachgolf said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

> > > >

> > > > It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

> > > >

> > > > Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> > > > The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

> > > >

> > > > To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

> > >

> > > I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

> >

> > Lol. I suppose. We do mostly agree. I just feel like there’s a measure of difference it would make for some. But I guess I also agree as well because I know I could score the same with a smaller driver as I did so for a while before getting used to a giant head.

> >

> >

>

> https://imgur.com/a/uYrieie

>

> This was 10 minutes ago and first swing of the day into a hurting wind. I might hit my driver 280ish in those same conditions. It’s a difference but I’m not close to as good as those guys and I’d shoot lower scores from 6800 with persimmon than I would 7200 with a modern driver. Over 7,000 and it’d affect my scores but I’m not a long hitter

 

Lol. And I hope you didn’t take my distance speak as me equating myself to being equal to tour guys !? Was just trying to let you know I’m not a 5 iron from 150 jack who’s on here talking about what he doesn’t know. ( distance wise). Im of course speaking in relative terms as far as scoring ability. Scoring ability and distance being 2 separate items in my opinion. Not scoring aptitude, but proven current ability. Anyway . I digress yet again.

 

 

Good looking strike by the way.

You’re line about scoring better from 6800 with persimmon is kind of part of my point. What would be so bad about playing courses shorter with less helping equipment ?

 

Again I’m really not arguing with you. Just thinking out loud. And a lot of it stems from the past where I grew so frustrated watching 5-12 handicap guys flail away at driver as if they were killing a snake and time and time again their ball finding good spots to play from. Meanwhile I was struggling with a modern driver head and was playing a lot of 3 woods knowing that of that player had to use 3 wood most holes he’d be in deep doo. Fast forward a couple years and those same guys give me bad looks when I hit driver. Lol. But I don’t swing like I’m killing snakes either still. And they do. So it still bugs me that my advantage is still not really full compared to how I hit it vs the guy who has a shotgun spray pattern for shots on his mailbox driver.

 

I guess that I should just shut up. Lol. So I will. Thanks for the conversation.

[iteachgolf]

> @starsail85 said:

> > @iteachgolf said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @iteachgolf said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

> > > > >

> > > > > It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> > > > > The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

> > > > >

> > > > > To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

> > > >

> > > > I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

> > >

> > > Lol. I suppose. We do mostly agree. I just feel like there’s a measure of difference it would make for some. But I guess I also agree as well because I know I could score the same with a smaller driver as I did so for a while before getting used to a giant head.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > https://imgur.com/a/uYrieie

> >

> > This was 10 minutes ago and first swing of the day into a hurting wind. I might hit my driver 280ish in those same conditions. It’s a difference but I’m not close to as good as those guys and I’d shoot lower scores from 6800 with persimmon than I would 7200 with a modern driver. Over 7,000 and it’d affect my scores but I’m not a long hitter

>

>

>

> How do we explain the 1.49 smash ? I’m Abit out of touch but is 1.49 still the max? Or is it 1.52 with a toe hit?

>

> I was told by titleist a long time ago that persimmon or old steel/titanium drivers before they started thinning the faces have a COR of .77

>

> By about 2001 many drivers up and above .81 and up to the limit of .83

>

> If the COR is lower on the persimmon how to we explain the smash ? Is it related to a heavier driver ? Heavier head/shaft etc ?

>

 

1.52 is a misread from measuring wrong part of the clubhead. Max is 1.49ish for most heads. Clubhead weight is right around 200g, same as modern heads. I don’t think I’d hit a modern driver with an x100 in it any further than I’d hit persimmon on good shots.

 

And when they were testing COR how where they doing it and with what ball? Can see 1.5-2mph difference in ball speeds across modern balls, let alone old wound balls

[iteachgolf]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @iteachgolf said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @iteachgolf said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > Blade, again, there will never be bifurcation as you suggest. There is no market for those clubs and balls. And, really, what would be the point? When I watched pros back in the 60's and 70's, they smacked the shite out of the ball, and scored exceptionally well. Give a modern pro time to adapt and tinker, and they would be just fine.

> > > > >

> > > > > It’s hard to say never. There are so many forms. A rollback in general wouldn’t be bifurcation. So I guess you’d be correct there.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again. Nobody can seem to understand that I’m not disagreeing that the pro level ( top pros) would adapt.

> > > > > The question that stems from that is. What are people so afraid of if they believe that the adaptation would be quick and easy ?

> > > > >

> > > > > To give off the idea that nothing would change is also wrong. Or at least hard to follow. It’s either new tech helps. Or new tech doesn’t. We can’t straddle this fence of “ it helps a lot ..... oh but the pros would adapt and there’d be no net loss “. How can both be true ?

> > > >

> > > > I’ve already said literally multiple times, it’d make a difference just not a big one at the elite level. A ton of pros still played steel shafted drivers and wound balls in the late 90s with some still playing persimmon. The ball has been by far the biggest change, and it happened AFTER the switch to metal woods and graphite shafts. So most have never played the old equipment with a modern ball. The modern ball is he big difference, and much less so the equipment. Who it helps is the average golfer, which is why they won’t roll back or bifurcate. The average golfer doesn’t want to get worse and many would quite or not follow the rules if changed.

> > >

> > > Lol. I suppose. We do mostly agree. I just feel like there’s a measure of difference it would make for some. But I guess I also agree as well because I know I could score the same with a smaller driver as I did so for a while before getting used to a giant head.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > https://imgur.com/a/uYrieie

> >

> > This was 10 minutes ago and first swing of the day into a hurting wind. I might hit my driver 280ish in those same conditions. It’s a difference but I’m not close to as good as those guys and I’d shoot lower scores from 6800 with persimmon than I would 7200 with a modern driver. Over 7,000 and it’d affect my scores but I’m not a long hitter

>

> Lol. And I hope you didn’t take my distance speak as me equating myself to being equal to tour guys !? Was just trying to let you know I’m not a 5 iron from 150 jack who’s on here talking about what he doesn’t know. ( distance wise). Im of course speaking in relative terms as far as scoring ability. Scoring ability and distance being 2 separate items in my opinion. Not scoring aptitude, but proven current ability. Anyway . I digress yet again.

>

>

> Good looking strike by the way.

> You’re line about scoring better from 6800 with persimmon is kind of part of my point. What would be so bad about playing courses shorter with less helping equipment ?

>

> Again I’m really not arguing with you. Just thinking out loud. And a lot of it stems from the past where I grew so frustrated watching 5-12 handicap guys flail away at driver as if they were killing a snake and time and time again their ball finding good spots to play from. Meanwhile I was struggling with a modern driver head and was playing a lot of 3 woods knowing that of that player had to use 3 wood most holes he’d be in deep doo. Fast forward a couple years and those same guys give me bad looks when I hit driver. Lol. But I don’t swing like I’m killing snakes either still. And they do. So it still bugs me that my advantage is still not really full compared to how I hit it vs the guy who has a shotgun spray pattern for shots on his mailbox driver.

>

> I guess that I should just shut up. Lol. So I will. Thanks for the conversation.

 

I enjoy playing with persimmon which is why I still do (about 15-20% of my rounds played). We have several Donald Ross courses that are under 7,000 yards in town that are real fun with persimmon and blades.