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

[farmer]

> @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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

[bladehunter]

> @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

 

I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

 

But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

 

It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

[lowheel]

I agree with iteach about the minimal difference to tour players if its only a small headed driver/strong 3 wood as a change. In this scenario if were not shortening any of the tour stops i truly believe tour pros would hit more fairways with the smaller heads but they couldnt really attack and dominate the par 5s as consistently as they do now and possibly struggle on the longer par 4s if it blows.I think strategy would be more important. Its not a realistic scenario but fun to discuss for sure.Id still advocate for a billionaire to throw a 2-3 day event with tour pros playing old school clubs and balls.I really believe once a year it would be ratings gold.

[Shilgy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

>

> I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

>

> But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

>

> It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

 

I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

 

If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

 

I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

[Forged4ever]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> >

> > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> >

> > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> >

> > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

>

> I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

>

> If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

>

> I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

 

Hey Shilgs, I hope that you’re well Brother?

 

I agree ? % with this post!!

 

With the driver/metals(woods), for me, it was about tempo!

 

I could “jump” on a modern driver and if my smash factor suffered a bit, I was still in good shape, just not great shape.

 

With the older stuff, and especially the Persimmons, which I Played for a competitive 72 hole Tourney once a year, I had to just put a nice smooth swing on it, and I didn’t “reach back” for that extra 10-15% that I could with a 440-460cc driver or even a 3M.

 

As I Played the Staff Fg 59 Tour Blades my last season, which are smaller than the Baby Blades(The comparative 59/BB pics are another member’s and I’m sorry though I forget who so if ya wanna step up, feel free?. The 59/Current Tour 100 comparative pic is mine?), and they were not that much larger than the irons that I Played from 1976-1986 and the irons that they were patterned after, the 1976 Tour Blades(Pictured in pink?), I didn’t find that much difference, though again, I just focused on “smooth,” as my only real swing thought. I found the smaller iron, both the ‘76 TBs & the 59’s, to be much easier to hit as there was less metal to hit the ball with and less surface area for it to find. Also notice the reduced off-set between the 59 and the Baby Blade and also the Staff Tour 100’s, which I also really preferred.

 

 

 

Nathan Smith, Sean Knapp and other elite Ams Played in the “Vintage Tourney” also and while I was in the mid 70’s(73-77), they routinely broke 70, with both winning it my last two years, Nathan with a low round of 67(Par 71) and then Sean with a low of 66(Par 71) at Oakmont from the 1973 US Open distances of 6920-6940yds.

 

Please remember that these are National USGA Champions(Nathan a 4-Time Mid-Am Champion and the inaugural 4-Ball Champion & Sean, the 2017 Senior Open Champion & ‘18 Runner-Up) that can’t make a cut in a Web.com event.

 

How would a Tour Pro hit these sticks???

 

C’mon guys, lolol???

 

They’d own em, just like they do with whatever club that you’d put in their hands.

 

Stay well and have a great season Bro?

Richard

[bladehunter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> >

> > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> >

> > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> >

> > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

>

> I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

>

> If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

>

> I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

 

I don’t disagree with you entirely. But. The fact that people could adjust doesn’t mean they aren’t afraid initially. Just read the “ blade vs cb “ threads here. Many skilled players here will have you believe that their modern irons are worth 5/6 shots a round to them. I’m sure driver is similarly valued.

 

And also the fact that we all seem to agree that people could adjust , tells me that a rollback is doable and wouldn’t be the real end to the game or the world.

 

I know that horse has left the barn. But it’s fun to see people’s thoughts on it and how those thoughts seem to change depending on what angle I approach it from.

[gvogel]

> @Forged4ever said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > >

> > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > >

> > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > >

> > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> >

> > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> >

> > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> >

> > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

>

> Hey Shilgs, I hope that you’re well Brother?

>

> I agree ? % with this post!!

>

> With the driver/metals(woods), for me, it was about tempo!

>

> I could “jump” on a modern driver and if my smash factor suffered a bit, I was still in good shape, just not great shape.

>

>** With the older stuff, and especially the Persimmons, which I Played for a competitive 72 hole Tourney once a year, I had to just put a nice smooth swing on it, and I didn’t “reach back” for that extra 10-15% that I could with a 440-460cc driver or even a 3M**.

>

> As I Played the Staff Fg 59 Tour Blades my last season, which are smaller than the Baby Blades(The comparative 59/BB pics are another member’s and I’m sorry though I forget who so if ya wanna step up, feel free?. The 59/Current Tour 100 comparative pic is mine?), and they were not that much larger than the irons that I Played from 1976-1986 and the irons that they were patterned after, the 1976 Tour Blades(Pictured in pink?), I didn’t find that much difference, though again, I just focused on “smooth,” as my only real swing thought. I found the smaller iron, both the ‘76 TBs & the 59’s, to be much easier to hit as there was less metal to hit the ball with and less surface area for it to find. Also notice the reduced off-set between the 59 and the Baby Blade and also the Staff Tour 100’s, which I also really preferred.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Nathan Smith, Sean Knapp and other elite Ams Played in the “Vintage Tourney” also and while I was in the mid 70’s(73-77), they routinely broke 70, with both winning it my last two years, Nathan with a low round of 67(Par 71) and then Sean with a low of 66(Par 71) at Oakmont from the 1973 US Open distances of 6920-6940yds.

>

> Please remember that these are National USGA Champions(Nathan a 4-Time Mid-Am Champion and the inaugural 4-Ball Champion & Sean, the 2017 Senior Open Champion & ‘18 Runner-Up) that can’t make a cut in a Web.com event.

>

> How would a Tour Pro hit these sticks???

>

> C’mon guys, lolol???

>

> They’d own em, just like they do with whatever club that you’d put in their hands.

>

> Stay well and have a great season Bro?

> Richard

 

Richard,

I think that the fact that you would throttle back 10% with an older driver is important for this discussion. Back when the best were playing with persimmon, they all went at 80% - to 90% effort most of the time, because the miss could be so disastrous. That would certainly cause average driving distance to decline.

[Shilgy]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > > >

> > > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > > >

> > > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > > >

> > > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> > >

> > > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> > >

> > > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> > >

> > > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

> >

> > Hey Shilgs, I hope that you’re well Brother?

> >

> > I agree ? % with this post!!

> >

> > With the driver/metals(woods), for me, it was about tempo!

> >

> > I could “jump” on a modern driver and if my smash factor suffered a bit, I was still in good shape, just not great shape.

> >

> >** With the older stuff, and especially the Persimmons, which I Played for a competitive 72 hole Tourney once a year, I had to just put a nice smooth swing on it, and I didn’t “reach back” for that extra 10-15% that I could with a 440-460cc driver or even a 3M**.

> >

> > As I Played the Staff Fg 59 Tour Blades my last season, which are smaller than the Baby Blades(The comparative 59/BB pics are another member’s and I’m sorry though I forget who so if ya wanna step up, feel free?. The 59/Current Tour 100 comparative pic is mine?), and they were not that much larger than the irons that I Played from 1976-1986 and the irons that they were patterned after, the 1976 Tour Blades(Pictured in pink?), I didn’t find that much difference, though again, I just focused on “smooth,” as my only real swing thought. I found the smaller iron, both the ‘76 TBs & the 59’s, to be much easier to hit as there was less metal to hit the ball with and less surface area for it to find. Also notice the reduced off-set between the 59 and the Baby Blade and also the Staff Tour 100’s, which I also really preferred.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Nathan Smith, Sean Knapp and other elite Ams Played in the “Vintage Tourney” also and while I was in the mid 70’s(73-77), they routinely broke 70, with both winning it my last two years, Nathan with a low round of 67(Par 71) and then Sean with a low of 66(Par 71) at Oakmont from the 1973 US Open distances of 6920-6940yds.

> >

> > Please remember that these are National USGA Champions(Nathan a 4-Time Mid-Am Champion and the inaugural 4-Ball Champion & Sean, the 2017 Senior Open Champion & ‘18 Runner-Up) that can’t make a cut in a Web.com event.

> >

> > How would a Tour Pro hit these sticks???

> >

> > C’mon guys, lolol???

> >

> > They’d own em, just like they do with whatever club that you’d put in their hands.

> >

> > Stay well and have a great season Bro?

> > Richard

>

> Richard,

> I think that the fact that you would throttle back 10% with an older driver is important for this discussion. Back when the best were playing with persimmon, they all went at 80% - to 90% effort most of the time, because the miss could be so disastrous. That would certainly cause average driving distance to decline.

 

I am glad you said "most of the time" because watching Miller and Jack in particular they very rarely held anything back.

[Shilgy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > >

> > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > >

> > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > >

> > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> >

> > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> >

> > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> >

> > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

>

> I don’t disagree with you entirely. But. The fact that people could adjust doesn’t mean they aren’t afraid initially. Just read the “ blade vs cb “ threads here. Many skilled players here will have you believe that their modern irons are **worth 5/6 shots a round to them. I’m sure driver is similarly valued**.

>

> And also the fact that we all seem to agree that people could adjust , tells me that a rollback is doable and wouldn’t be the real end to the game or the world.

>

> I know that horse has left the barn. But it’s fun to see people’s thoughts on it and how those thoughts seem to change depending on what angle I approach it from.

 

Hyperbole at it's finest. Skilled players would lose 10-12 shots per round if they played older irons and driver??? Does driver save 5-6 rounds over a three wood? Why would the old tech be worse than that? Mind you I was scratch in the late 80's so have a good idea what it was like. Played persimmon and Staff blades then. Were they less forgiving? Sure. But 5-6 strokes a round? No frickin' way. It is not like the new stuff makes an awful swing go straight and sure.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > > > >

> > > > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > > > >

> > > > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> > > >

> > > > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> > > >

> > > > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> > > >

> > > > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

> > >

> > > Hey Shilgs, I hope that you’re well Brother?

> > >

> > > I agree ? % with this post!!

> > >

> > > With the driver/metals(woods), for me, it was about tempo!

> > >

> > > I could “jump” on a modern driver and if my smash factor suffered a bit, I was still in good shape, just not great shape.

> > >

> > >** With the older stuff, and especially the Persimmons, which I Played for a competitive 72 hole Tourney once a year, I had to just put a nice smooth swing on it, and I didn’t “reach back” for that extra 10-15% that I could with a 440-460cc driver or even a 3M**.

> > >

> > > As I Played the Staff Fg 59 Tour Blades my last season, which are smaller than the Baby Blades(The comparative 59/BB pics are another member’s and I’m sorry though I forget who so if ya wanna step up, feel free?. The 59/Current Tour 100 comparative pic is mine?), and they were not that much larger than the irons that I Played from 1976-1986 and the irons that they were patterned after, the 1976 Tour Blades(Pictured in pink?), I didn’t find that much difference, though again, I just focused on “smooth,” as my only real swing thought. I found the smaller iron, both the ‘76 TBs & the 59’s, to be much easier to hit as there was less metal to hit the ball with and less surface area for it to find. Also notice the reduced off-set between the 59 and the Baby Blade and also the Staff Tour 100’s, which I also really preferred.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nathan Smith, Sean Knapp and other elite Ams Played in the “Vintage Tourney” also and while I was in the mid 70’s(73-77), they routinely broke 70, with both winning it my last two years, Nathan with a low round of 67(Par 71) and then Sean with a low of 66(Par 71) at Oakmont from the 1973 US Open distances of 6920-6940yds.

> > >

> > > Please remember that these are National USGA Champions(Nathan a 4-Time Mid-Am Champion and the inaugural 4-Ball Champion & Sean, the 2017 Senior Open Champion & ‘18 Runner-Up) that can’t make a cut in a Web.com event.

> > >

> > > How would a Tour Pro hit these sticks???

> > >

> > > C’mon guys, lolol???

> > >

> > > They’d own em, just like they do with whatever club that you’d put in their hands.

> > >

> > > Stay well and have a great season Bro?

> > > Richard

> >

> > Richard,

> > I think that the fact that you would throttle back 10% with an older driver is important for this discussion. Back when the best were playing with persimmon, they all went at 80% - to 90% effort most of the time, because the miss could be so disastrous. That would certainly cause average driving distance to decline.

>

> I am glad you said "most of the time" because watching Miller and Jack in particular they very rarely held anything back.

 

Careful. I've read this board long enough to know that Nicklaus had anywhere from 25 to 78 more yards "when he needed it" and/or "if he really wanted to".

[Forged4ever]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > > > >

> > > > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > > > >

> > > > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> > > >

> > > > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> > > >

> > > > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> > > >

> > > > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

> > >

> > > Hey Shilgs, I hope that you’re well Brother?

> > >

> > > I agree ? % with this post!!

> > >

> > > With the driver/metals(woods), for me, it was about tempo!

> > >

> > > I could “jump” on a modern driver and if my smash factor suffered a bit, I was still in good shape, just not great shape.

> > >

> > >** With the older stuff, and especially the Persimmons, which I Played for a competitive 72 hole Tourney once a year, I had to just put a nice smooth swing on it, and I didn’t “reach back” for that extra 10-15% that I could with a 440-460cc driver or even a 3M**.

> > >

> > > As I Played the Staff Fg 59 Tour Blades my last season, which are smaller than the Baby Blades(The comparative 59/BB pics are another member’s and I’m sorry though I forget who so if ya wanna step up, feel free?. The 59/Current Tour 100 comparative pic is mine?), and they were not that much larger than the irons that I Played from 1976-1986 and the irons that they were patterned after, the 1976 Tour Blades(Pictured in pink?), I didn’t find that much difference, though again, I just focused on “smooth,” as my only real swing thought. I found the smaller iron, both the ‘76 TBs & the 59’s, to be much easier to hit as there was less metal to hit the ball with and less surface area for it to find. Also notice the reduced off-set between the 59 and the Baby Blade and also the Staff Tour 100’s, which I also really preferred.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nathan Smith, Sean Knapp and other elite Ams Played in the “Vintage Tourney” also and while I was in the mid 70’s(73-77), they routinely broke 70, with both winning it my last two years, Nathan with a low round of 67(Par 71) and then Sean with a low of 66(Par 71) at Oakmont from the 1973 US Open distances of 6920-6940yds.

> > >

> > > Please remember that these are National USGA Champions(Nathan a 4-Time Mid-Am Champion and the inaugural 4-Ball Champion & Sean, the 2017 Senior Open Champion & ‘18 Runner-Up) that can’t make a cut in a Web.com event.

> > >

> > > How would a Tour Pro hit these sticks???

> > >

> > > C’mon guys, lolol???

> > >

> > > They’d own em, just like they do with whatever club that you’d put in their hands.

> > >

> > > Stay well and have a great season Bro?

> > > Richard

> >

> > Richard,

> > I think that the fact that you would throttle back 10% with an older driver is important for this discussion. Back when the best were playing with persimmon, they all went at 80% - to 90% effort most of the time, because the miss could be so disastrous. That would certainly cause average driving distance to decline.

>

> I am glad you said "most of the time" because watching Miller and Jack in particular they very rarely held anything back.

 

Haha, again, I agree with ya, though Jack would not, lol?

 

Jack told Madison & I that he rarely went at a tee ball with over 90%(his exact phrasing was “95/90,” as in 95% of the time, he went at the ball with a 90% swing) as he could take it 300+ with a 90% swing.

 

Remember that he also stated that he never missed a 5’ or less putt with either the lead or Tourney on the line on Sunday even as there was a vid of him doing exactly that just two weeks prior to the reporter asking him that very question??

 

Rotella explained to the reporter that in Jack’s mind he had indeed never missed a 5’er or less with the lead or Tourney on the line and then I asked him if it was true that he could process up to FIVE swing thoughts while standing over a ball in address prior to swinging and with as much confidence & conviction as he undoubtably answered that reporter’s question, he replied succinctly, “absolutely,” lol

 

I mean WhoTF am I to press Jack??

 

Besides Maddie kicked me under the table??

 

This pic just looks like the greatest 90% that I’ve ever seen as it is framed on his library credenza and he pointed to it and said simply, “that is a 95/90 swing.”

 

Madison wasn’t with me but again, I smiled and STFU?

 

Stay well Brother?

RP

 

[bladehunter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > > >

> > > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > > >

> > > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > > >

> > > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> > >

> > > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> > >

> > > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> > >

> > > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

> >

> > I don’t disagree with you entirely. But. The fact that people could adjust doesn’t mean they aren’t afraid initially. Just read the “ blade vs cb “ threads here. Many skilled players here will have you believe that their modern irons are **worth 5/6 shots a round to them. I’m sure driver is similarly valued**.

> >

> > And also the fact that we all seem to agree that people could adjust , tells me that a rollback is doable and wouldn’t be the real end to the game or the world.

> >

> > I know that horse has left the barn. But it’s fun to see people’s thoughts on it and how those thoughts seem to change depending on what angle I approach it from.

>

> Hyperbole at it's finest. Skilled players would lose 10-12 shots per round if they played older irons and driver??? Does driver save 5-6 rounds over a three wood? Why would the old tech be worse than that? Mind you I was scratch in the late 80's so have a good idea what it was like. Played persimmon and Staff blades then. Were they less forgiving? Sure. But 5-6 strokes a round? No frickin' way. It is not like the new stuff makes an awful swing go straight and sure.

 

Lol. I agree with you. But please. For the love of all that is good , go quote that in the numerous blades vs CB debates going on in the equipment section. I’ll start a go fund me to buy your lunch. ( May have to wait till my 10 year old can show me how ). I need some entertainment. There are several guys who’s heads would implode. Good players who would tell you the opposite.

[Forged4ever]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @farmer 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 don't understand the "afraid" idea in this context. At the professional level, adaptation would be relatively easy. At the hdcp level, it might not be hard as thought. Smaller heads are easier to square up, shorter shafts might lead to more solid contact. Clubhead design and knowledge has made a quantum leap from the original Pittsburgh Persimmon, so with modern design technology you might not see as much loss as intuitively imagined. Yes, technology helps, of course it does. The worst modern urethane ball today is so much better than the best balata, wound ball that there is no real comparison. Drivers are better, shafts are better, technology allows players to be fit into clubs that suit them better. Technology probably helps the hdcp player more than the elite player, and that is the market golf has to capture. Whatever the pros and cons of modern club/ball design there are, the genie is out of the bottle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’m in a good mood. So not trying to argue. Lol

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But. Go to your handicap association and try to insert this into the clubs summer schedule “ one month of retro play .... “. 4 weeks of competition with only steel shafts , 260cc max head ( can even be metal ) your favorite set of blades and any ball you chose. and see the reaction. You can read the fear on some of their faces . Lol.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It’s misplaced and unfounded. But it’s real.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can see the blade part being scary for some players. But I really don't get the idea that 260cc would be difficult. Just because players hit the large drivers all over the face doesn't mean they would whiff with a smaller head. Did you whiff your 3 wood when you were struggling with the big driver? I really doubt it. If guys can hit hybrids and fairway woods there is no reason a smaller driver would be difficult. I'm in the camp that says it would be easier to control the smaller head driver. Might maybe lose a few yards but would be much straighter.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you made them play the blades for 4 weeks as you mentioned I would bet by the end of the month, if not sooner, they would be posting the same scores they are now.

> > > > >

> > > > > I know you are relatively new to the game but the old equipment was really not that difficult to play, just different.

> > > >

> > > > Hey Shilgs, I hope that you’re well Brother?

> > > >

> > > > I agree ? % with this post!!

> > > >

> > > > With the driver/metals(woods), for me, it was about tempo!

> > > >

> > > > I could “jump” on a modern driver and if my smash factor suffered a bit, I was still in good shape, just not great shape.

> > > >

> > > >** With the older stuff, and especially the Persimmons, which I Played for a competitive 72 hole Tourney once a year, I had to just put a nice smooth swing on it, and I didn’t “reach back” for that extra 10-15% that I could with a 440-460cc driver or even a 3M**.

> > > >

> > > > As I Played the Staff Fg 59 Tour Blades my last season, which are smaller than the Baby Blades(The comparative 59/BB pics are another member’s and I’m sorry though I forget who so if ya wanna step up, feel free?. The 59/Current Tour 100 comparative pic is mine?), and they were not that much larger than the irons that I Played from 1976-1986 and the irons that they were patterned after, the 1976 Tour Blades(Pictured in pink?), I didn’t find that much difference, though again, I just focused on “smooth,” as my only real swing thought. I found the smaller iron, both the ‘76 TBs & the 59’s, to be much easier to hit as there was less metal to hit the ball with and less surface area for it to find. Also notice the reduced off-set between the 59 and the Baby Blade and also the Staff Tour 100’s, which I also really preferred.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nathan Smith, Sean Knapp and other elite Ams Played in the “Vintage Tourney” also and while I was in the mid 70’s(73-77), they routinely broke 70, with both winning it my last two years, Nathan with a low round of 67(Par 71) and then Sean with a low of 66(Par 71) at Oakmont from the 1973 US Open distances of 6920-6940yds.

> > > >

> > > > Please remember that these are National USGA Champions(Nathan a 4-Time Mid-Am Champion and the inaugural 4-Ball Champion & Sean, the 2017 Senior Open Champion & ‘18 Runner-Up) that can’t make a cut in a Web.com event.

> > > >

> > > > How would a Tour Pro hit these sticks???

> > > >

> > > > C’mon guys, lolol???

> > > >

> > > > They’d own em, just like they do with whatever club that you’d put in their hands.

> > > >

> > > > Stay well and have a great season Bro?

> > > > Richard

> > >

> > > Richard,

> > > I think that the fact that you would throttle back 10% with an older driver is important for this discussion. Back when the best were playing with persimmon, they all went at 80% - to 90% effort most of the time, because the miss could be so disastrous. That would certainly cause average driving distance to decline.

> >

> > I am glad you said "most of the time" because watching Miller and Jack in particular they very rarely held anything back.

>

> Careful. I've read this board long enough to know that Nicklaus had anywhere from 25 to 78 more yards "when he needed it" and/or "if he really wanted to".

 

Exactly, and he also said that on many holes, it did not benefit him, one, to swing full go, and secondly, due to the layout of the hole, he played for certain spots and distances and it might be more beneficial to him to drive to 280-285yds than it would to send it 300-310yds+ due fairway topography, pin placement, etc., and he said even on some par 5’s, and he brought up today’s courses that are laid out for guys just to step up and bomb, and this is especially true on the Web.com cuz that’s what the fans pay to see and he thought that it hurts the young guys who he said really only Play “bombs away(his words)” golf, he would not just step up and blast the ball because he was thinking two shots ahead if he could not get home in two.

 

He also said that the Tour game was much more “strategic” back in the day than it is today.

 

Only Jack knows if he dialed it back 95% of the time though I do believe he had more in the tank on many many more of his drives than not.

 

Let’s not forget that this Man’s favorite club in his bag was a friggin 1i??

 

Seriously, lol.

 

Have a great day Ash?

 

My best,

RP

[starsail85]

Wish we could stop going on about big jack hitting it 300 plus . He says it himself that 260 carry is about his limit (golf my way )

[Forged4ever]

> @starsail85 said:

> Wish we could stop going on about big jack hitting it 300 plus . He says it himself that 260 carry is about his limit (golf my way )

 

Then that 341 yarder in 1963 PGA Championship Long Drive Contest musta been a once in a life time bomb, huh??????

 

And I’ll also bet that it was not a “95/90” swing?

 

 

260, huh????

 

I loooooove this place?

 

Oh, and I don’t know if you Played persimmons however those inserts were insanely hard and Sam figures that he might have broken 4-5 inserts and all were before he went with Toney Penna at Macgregor, and then when Penna went out in his own, with his driver and woods. Penna made all of those inserts/drivers for those guys himself and you gotta put a serious hurt on a balata ball to crack that insert, let alone NINE times, lol. Jack also Played Macs.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/77079-the-most-powerful-player-in-the-history-of-the-game

 

While Mr. Palmer didn’t speak of the drive referenced in the article, he did spoke often of Jack’s prodigious length and he said that he could hit the ball 270-290 and he thought that Jack took extra glee or got extra motivation when they were paired together cuz Jack would take it way past parallel(it too wasn’t a 90%er??) and blow it 50-60yds past him, and Mr. Palmer was not known to embellish or exaggerate his stories.

 

Have some of the guys that Played top persimmons tell ya about their quality and how many inserts they’ve cracked, lol?

 

Jack specifically spoke of hitting a ball 300yds with a “90” swing and he was speaking of his hay day.

 

260, huh??

 

Okey dokey then?

 

Cheers?

RP

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

Yea. I’ve got a couple first hand Jack stories poured in my ear over the last couple years. My favorite one I don’t recall the details of ( but I’ll ask and get it and report back ) But the synopsis was that some kid was playing a round with jack and 2 other guys. Kid puts it out there pretty good and is mouthing about it. Finally makes a challenge to jack on a par 5 that he can out drive him best ball for best ball. So they tee it up. Kid hits a good one and announces “ beat that “. Jack let’s go and pounds one. Flys the kids ball and rolls out a little. Kid chirps “ just barely “. And jack holds up the sole of the club to his face. Jack just blew a 3 wood by his driver. That was the last chirp of the round.

 

Really shouldn’t tell that since I can’t remeber who the other players were. But. It was told to me by a mentor of mine who was one of 10 or so people waking with the group watching. He was long. No doubt. Long as he needed to be.

[starsail85]

I’m only going off what jack states himself in his book .

[farmer]

And, there was the 235 yd uphill 1 iron at Baltusrol. I've read his book .... he was being very modest. Maybe 260 was his target yardage, but he had another gear.

[Forged4ever]

> @farmer said:

> And, there was the 235 yd uphill 1 iron at Baltusrol. I've read his book .... he was being very modest. Maybe 260 was his target yardage, but he had another gear.

 

If we’re using 260 as the barometer, he had 2-3 more gears??

 

That 1i was an incredible shot.

 

Madison asked him what his favorite club was in his bag and she said that he didn’t even hesitate to think it over and he replied, “1 iron,” lol

 

I remember when Pete gave me my first new set of Staffs for my 16th BD and it had a 1i in it and I carried a 2i though I never ever hit it and I was like “WTF am I supposed to do with this,” lmao??? I grew to hit a 2i in college and Played one till 87 when I got my first set of Mizzies and it started at the 3i.

 

Have a great season?

 

My Best,

RP

[Forged4ever]

> @bladehunter said:

He was long. No doubt. Long as he needed to be.

 

 

 

Haha, my memory is shot, lol

 

When I read certain things it sparks a memory and your comment about Jack being as “long as he needed to be,” sparked a comment that he made when Maddie and I were at lunch with he and Steve and it was in the distance conversation and jack said almost that exact comment as he said “I hit a ball as far as I needed to, no further.” He said a couple of times that he had absolutely no problem hitting a ball 300yds+ with a “95/90” swing and Steve even used the phrase, saying his was “95/95,” though having played with Steve a few times, he had a beautiful tempo swing and he did go after it. My Tour Bud says that he also goes at about 95%. Maddie is 95%+(she’ll get p!ssed if I say 100%??, and I don’t wanna eat McD’s tonight, lol)

 

Stay well Brother?

RP

[smashdn]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

> > @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.

>

 

I haven't taken the opportunity to watch what I posted lately so what I am about to recollect has really stuck with me about that particular video. In it the young gent says something to the effect (paraphrasing now), "I think I could play this club (or ball my memory on the specifics is fuzzy) but it would require a lot more practice to ensure I could hit it flush consistently." He was basically admitting in not so many words that he did not really have to practice driver all that much with a modern driver as even a miss with it did not result in a terrible outcome. An "off day" driving is still manageable with modern equipment.