What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[clevited]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Hey, its the back nine at Augusta in the final round of the masters.  It takes a particular set of skills to cope with it.  Old school, shot-shaping skills.. and exemplary strategy.  I don't recall anything looking like a gift.  I do recall seeing a legend with a fused spine answering the bell and a handful of others not being able to hack it.  Maybe that's what you mean.

 

Modern players dominate the game you prefer and enjoy because it's all they've known growing up.  Good for them.  I take nothing from them, what they can do is impressive.  It's my opinion none of them will have the mastery to dominate though - not at historic levels.  Not from their paint by numbers skills to their massively stressed joints.      

 

See, I believe that there is just more parity today due in large part to the Tiger effect.  He attracted so many to the sport, and money prizes grew a ton over the years.  This in turn attracts more people to the sport and you are more likely to see more naturally talented and athletic players get into the game.  We can talk about drive to win, and the confidence and mojo to win being a variable, I believe in that, but talent wise, I think parity is the name of the game and I don't believe any significant proportion of that is due to equipment btw.

[clevited]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

 

  Your modern players will be as good as Tiger and Phil when they accomplish as much.  It's not looking like any of them will have the longevity or dominance to even sniff Phil's record.   Not saying it can't be done, but it seems un-likely.  Brooks Koepka was on pace, but his body is already failing him. 

 

Won't likely be dominance like Tiger ever again due to parity I mentioned.  This is what happens when a sport, or field of expertise offers a lot of reward for going after it.  The cream of the crop in talent, tend to gravitate towards it.  Back in the day, it was a lot of wealthy people that played the game and that was pretty much it.  You didn't get the diverse talent we have today.  It was easy for Jack, Tiger, Hogan to be stand outs by comparison to today.  I know that is going to piss off some people in here but the great thing is, I don't care.  That is the truth I see with today's players, you can deny it all you want but if you actually think about it and put your bias/nostalgia aside, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have.

[Dr. Block]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

See, I believe that there is just more parity today due in large part to the Tiger effect.  He attracted so many to the sport, and money prizes grew a ton over the years.  This in turn attracts more people to the sport and you are more likely to see more naturally talented and athletic players get into the game.  We can talk about drive to win, and the confidence and mojo to win being a variable, I believe in that, but talent wise, I think parity is the name of the game and I don't believe any significant proportion of that is due to equipment btw.

There certainly is parity. To me what has evolved is a massive collection of very athletic kids who all play the game the same way - and they are all very good at it.   I think we see few dominate now because the modern equipment has created a game where none of them can find an edge.  If somebody rises above the parity, it will probably be for their putting skills or something resembling what Bryson has done. 

 

Now Bryson is interesting because he has found a way to separate himself significantly.  Swing mechanics, equipment, and accuracy with a long drivers approach to tee shots.  Maybe he's the guy that can get to Phil's record.  But I tell ya, I'd take action on that just the same as I would for him to win the masters in a few weeks.  I don't think either will happen. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Won't likely be dominance like Tiger ever again due to parity I mentioned.  This is what happens when a sport, or field of expertise offers a lot of reward for going after it.  The cream of the crop in talent, tend to gravitate towards it.  Back in the day, it was a lot of wealthy people that played the game and that was pretty much it.  You didn't get the diverse talent we have today.  It was easy for Jack, Tiger, Hogan to be stand outs by comparison to today.  I know that is going to piss off some people in here but the great thing is, I don't care.  That is the truth I see with today's players, you can deny it all you want but if you actually think about it and put your bias/nostalgia aside, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have.

...or you could say that golf has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?

[Sean2]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Won't likely be dominance like Tiger ever again due to parity I mentioned.  This is what happens when a sport, or field of expertise offers a lot of reward for going after it.  The cream of the crop in talent, tend to gravitate towards it.  Back in the day, it was a lot of wealthy people that played the game and that was pretty much it.  You didn't get the diverse talent we have today.  It was easy for Jack, Tiger, Hogan to be stand outs by comparison to today.  I know that is going to piss off some people in here but the great thing is, I don't care.  That is the truth I see with today's players, you can deny it all you want but if you actually think about it and put your bias/nostalgia aside, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have.

I tend to agree. It seems the talent pool on Tour is deeper, players are working harder than ever...realizing if they don't, they will be left behind. 

[Dr. Block]

15 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Won't likely be dominance like Tiger ever again due to parity I mentioned.  This is what happens when a sport, or field of expertise offers a lot of reward for going after it.  The cream of the crop in talent, tend to gravitate towards it.  Back in the day, it was a lot of wealthy people that played the game and that was pretty much it.  You didn't get the diverse talent we have today.  It was easy for Jack, Tiger, Hogan to be stand outs by comparison to today.  I know that is going to piss off some people in here but the great thing is, I don't care.  That is the truth I see with today's players, you can deny it all you want but if you actually think about it and put your bias/nostalgia aside, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have.

I can agree with where you are coming from a little, but not for Tiger and Phil.  Not only did they play in a strong, strong era, but they competed against each other as well.  In my opinion, the last decade and a half or so hasn't produced a stronger crop of players then they faced, at least not yet.  Not by accomplishment anyway.  You have a ton of guys making money, you don't have nearly as many year in and year out proven champions.    

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dr. Block

[clevited]

25 minutes ago, mahonie said:

Errr...Augusta...defending champion in 4 weeks...what we’ve been talking about the last half hour...ring any bells?

 

Wow, he sure trashed the competition......

 

By that logic, every winner by 1 stroke ever that didn't even have the most amazing final round surely trashed the competition too.  😜

 

[clevited]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I can agree with where you are coming from a little, but not for Tiger and Phil.  Not only did they play in a strong, strong era, but they competed against each other as well.  In my opinion, the last decade and a half or so hasn't produced a stronger crop of players then they faced, at least not yet.  Not by accomplishment anyway.  You have a ton of guys making money, you don't have nearly as many year in and year out proven champions.    

 

Again, you aren't going to see the level of accomplished player you talk about probably ever again.  I could be wrong but I would seriously put money on what I said and all because of parity of talent, you aren't going to see Tiger or Jack or even Phil ever again.  You will not see your measure of accomplishment but not for lack of talent, but because the competition is that much more than it used to be.

[storm319]

28 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Not nearly as much as you think.  I would love Titleist thought to remake a limited edition batch for nostalgia.  Any evidence you see to the contrary these days is bunk.  20+ year old wound balls don't hold up.  They shrink, lose weight and lose major elasticity.  Closest I have seen to almost like new performance is Rick Shiels pro 90 ball.  (don't forget, there was a pro 100 ball that would have been that much better for a high speed swinger.)

 

Not to mention every ball regulation we have has stood since 1976 or earlier (minimum diameter not adopted until 1990 for amateurs outside of North America). Solid core, multi-layer construction has been subject to the same regulations as their wound predecessors. 

[mahonie]

11 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Wow, he sure trashed the competition......

 

By that logic, every winner by 1 stroke ever that didn't even have the most amazing final round surely trashed the competition too.  😜

 

He won

[Dr. Block]

23 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Again, you aren't going to see the level of accomplished player you talk about probably ever again.  I could be wrong but I would seriously put money on what I said and all because of parity of talent, you aren't going to see Tiger or Jack or even Phil ever again.  You will not see your measure of accomplishment but not for lack of talent, but because the competition is that much more than it used to be.

Its not the competition, its the game.  The game can only blame itself for the lack of dimension it will continue to exhibit in its evolution (is that from a lack of governance, or factors completely un-avoidable, I couldn't tell ya). But you give great athletes a road map and incredible equipment and they will do amazing things, but not only at the cost of their ability to differentiate themselves, but at the cost of the art and magic that once made this game and its competitors truly special.  And I think that is the point we are driving at as we debate with you.  It can't work both ways, and it won't.  But the things we value (the older guard) won't matter once we're gone, so it doesn't really matter all that much.  Its not like golf is alone in that journey. 

 

Golf is fine now, amazing even.  Its also boring and unremarkable in a lot of ways.   Enjoy it how you like. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dr. Block

[clevited]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

 

Not to mention every ball regulation we have has stood since 1976 or earlier (minimum diameter not adopted until 1990 for amateurs outside of North America). Solid core, multi-layer construction has been subject to the same regulations as their wound predecessors. 

 

I love referring to this little gem.  Spin is going to show pretty high, but how the heck was spin measured back then for one, and what were the lofts of clubs they use for testing back then?  We would really need to get brand new balls to test in order to put this to bed.  Probably ain't ever going to happen.  Best test is Shiels' test with a pro90 that shows how undifferent wound balls really could be from a modern ball.  

 

 

And just because I know this could come up, Shiels' shows lower yardage than his average numbers would suggest.  If you insert both sets of numbers into Trajectory Optimizer and they are almost identical.  The missing ball speed from his driver numbers I would be willing to bet, would come right back with a new ball.  Admittedly, we could also see more or less spin with a brand new ball as well.  I would also mention that who knows how much the ball getting misshapen effected ball flight and spin, as well as the dimple pattern.  Again, need to test and I would love for it to happen regardless of if I am right or wrong about it's performance vs a modern ball.

 

[mahonie]

14 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

Not to mention every ball regulation we have has stood since 1976 or earlier (minimum diameter not adopted until 1990 for amateurs outside of North America). Solid core, multi-layer construction has been subject to the same regulations as their wound predecessors. 

The ball reacts with other equipment...the RBs forgot to factor that in when they let the 460cc cat out of the bag...more’s the pity.

[storm319]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I love referring to this little gem.  Spin is going to show pretty high, but how the heck was spin measured back then for one, and what were the lofts of clubs they use for testing back then?  We would really need to get brand new balls to test in order to put this to bed.  Probably ain't ever going to happen.  Best test is Shiels' test with a pro90 that shows how undifferent wound balls really could be from a modern ball.  

 

 

And just because I know this could come up, Shiels' shows lower yardage than his average numbers would suggest.  If you insert both sets of numbers into Trajectory Optimizer and they are almost identical.  The missing ball speed from his driver numbers I would be willing to bet, would come right back with a new ball.  Admittedly, we could also see more or less spin with a brand new ball as well.  I would also mention that who knows how much the ball getting misshapen effected ball flight and spin, as well as the dimple pattern.  Again, need to test and I would love for it to happen regardless of if I am right or wrong about it's performance vs a modern ball.

 

 

No idea what the swing conditions were in that first pic, but I assume that it was consistent vs the other balls. The HVC (solid core, ionomer cover) below is only 700 rpm lower which isn't that much given what was likely used as a driver at the time (definitely not enough of a difference to result in drastic accuracy issues for the average pro). 

 

As for Shiels' comparison, just as ball speed suffers with age, spin can also be impacted as the wound ball starts to decay. Also, that was a Professional 90 which had a urethane cover vs balata. With that said, given how old those balls were I was surprised at how little the ball speed suffered with a 20+ year old wound ball regardless of the cover. 

[storm319]

10 minutes ago, mahonie said:

The ball reacts with other equipment...the RBs forgot to factor that in when they let the 460cc cat out of the bag...more’s the pity.

 

If you are talking about spin, sure. If you are talking about ball speed, then no a solid core, multi-layer ball is not faster with a modern 460cc driver than a brand new wound ball would be. The USGA ball velocity limit has been in place since the 1940's.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, clevited said:

 

So you are telling me, the game isn't growing because of what it is today?  Connect this for me, I don't see it at all.  I see children growing up with short attention spans or busy parents that don't have the time or patience to take them out to learn the game or give them a taste.  I see a still snooty image that prevents much of the middle class and lower from even wanting to play it.  I see real estate becoming worth more than small mom and pop golf courses which are a huge need to get those middle class and lower to play the game without the overwhelming snobbish atmosphere bigger courses can have.

 

I have a huge list of REAL problems and solutions to share should you want me to list them.  Not these imaginary distance related ones.

Before Covid I didn’t see growth at all. I saw decline.  By a lot.  
 

I’m on my courses competition committee which includes handicaps and membership drives ( now).  Our biggest talk each year is how to gain new members to replace the ones dying.  We are a semi private that sees loads of public play.  So survival isn’t the issue. The issue is getting participants for events.   It’s literally $100 a month family membership which includes unlimited play 15% off pro shop where titleist TM and Wilson is sold.   And range.   it’s a laid back place.  People just don’t really want to do the work to play this game.  
After Covid.   We are doing so many public rounds that I can’t get out alone on a weekday afternoon to just chill or take my kid out.  It’s walk to wall.  We’ve replaced the entire cartpath , and re roofed the cart and maintenance barns paid in full just off this summers take.  It’s nuts how many more rounds we’re doing compared to last year.  Close to double.  
 

 

Now.  I don’t agree with you on the overall snooty attitude.   Some places yes.  Usually the upper crust joints are a bit much for even me.  I’m as blue collar as they come.  But. The majority simply provide a place where appearance and actions are expected to be cleaned up.  And I prefer that.   The world has plenty of truck stops.  The club house doesn’t have to be boom boxes , wife  beaters and denim.  That’s the charm in my opinion.   Dress like somebody , act like somebody and be treated like somebody.   Which is how most of the world works.  Those who buck that usually are attention seekers who complain when  they get what they are asking for.  I have a brother who is just this. We were raised in the same place.  Golfs clean expectations are just fine.  We can’t dumb down everything . 
 

and when you do find a truly snooty place , by all means call it out.  I have.  But it’s rare. Generally when you’re in a spot where you feel uncomfortable, it’s you’re own insecurities that cause it.  And I’m speaking about myself.  I came from a house that thought golf was for rich folks.  Which is how I came to work at a course In my youth and  never play the game.  But later I found out the truth was , that idea was wrong.  It was my own self holding me back.  

 

by all means fire that list off.  

 

 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

Again, you aren't going to see the level of accomplished player you talk about probably ever again.  I could be wrong but I would seriously put money on what I said and all because of parity of talent, you aren't going to see Tiger or Jack or even Phil ever again.  You will not see your measure of accomplishment but not for lack of talent, but because the competition is that much more than it used to be.

I agree. But a very large part of that parity is the equipment.  

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

If you are talking about spin, sure. If you are talking about ball speed, then no a solid core, multi-layer ball is not faster with a modern 460cc driver than a brand new wound ball would be. The USGA ball velocity limit has been in place since the 1940's.

You got it...RBs didn’t see that the spin profile could be changed to the extent that the Pro V1 changed it...low spin off driver allied with high spin off wedge wasn’t even a consideration.

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I agree. But a very large part of that parity is the equipment.  

 

If that is so, how come you aren't on tour?  All I hear about is how much equipment has made your skills meaningless.

Edited October 20, 2020 by clevited

[bladehunter]

16 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

If that is so, how come you aren't on tour?  All I hear about is how much equipment has made your skills meaningless.

Lol.  What do I have to do with it?  I’ve alwasy compared myself to MY amateur contemporaries.    And if one was to dig , here , I’m quite open about my many shortcomings , both when I’m whining about them and after I conquer them.  ( putter ).  Nobody anywhere can find my trying to claim tour status.  Because it’s never happened.  I’ve only yet begun to learn.  Which is why I feel like my opinion is less biased ( less not without ) compared to most.   I did not play the game before 2014.  But.  I did always watch it.  So I guess in a way I learned from jack same as tiger. ( close to same age )  If that makes any kind of sense?  
 

as for the actual conversation.  Parity on tour.  You guys have agreed before that there are some pros who wouldn’t hit it far enough to keep a card if a substantial rollback were enacted.  Doesn’t that signal t one set of bunched up guys receiving equipment help ?  
 

bottom line is that when you add elements in that make everyone excel , then when compared to each other nobody excels.   Or fewer do.    If you made the game harder , the cream would rise.  Period.  How’s that not make sense ?  
 

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by bladehunter

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol.  What do I have to do with it?  I’ve alwasy compared myself to MY amateur contemporaries.    And if one was to dig , here , I’m quite open about my many shortcomings , both when I’m whining about them and after I conquer them.  ( putter ).  Nobody anywhere can find my trying to claim tour status.  Because it’s never happened.  I’ve only yet begun to learn.  Which is why I feel like my opinion is less biased ( less not without ) compared to most.   I did not play the game before 2014.  But.  I did always watch it.  So I guess in a way I learned from jack same as tiger. ( close to same age )  If that makes any kind of sense?  
 

as for the actual conversation.  Parity on tour.  You guys have agreed before that there are some pros who wouldn’t hit it far enough to keep a card if a substantial rollback were enacted.  Doesn’t that signal t one set of bunched up guys receiving equipment help ?  
 

bottom line is that when you add elements in that make everyone excel , then when compared to each other nobody excels.   Or fewer do.    If you made the game harder , the cream would rise.  Period.  How’s that not make sense ?  
 

 

 

I have a point to make with that, but tbh, I am too lazy atm to get into it.  Will drag you into it later though, promise 😜.

 

 

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I have a point to make with that, but tbh, I am too lazy atm to get into it.  Will drag you into it later though, promise 😜.

 

 

No problem.  Lol.  I’m feeling a bit lazy myself. Long 2020 like day so far.  Lemon 🍋 peppered chicken about to come out of the oven , so I may fall into a comatose state soon enough.  

[Nard_S]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

You do realize I love Tiger, I am just a realist.  He won yes, by getting the ball in the hole with the fewest shots, but he also got gifted the win by Molinari and Koepka choking.  A win is a win though but I mentioned all of this to show that these guys today can hang with Tiger, and I would even go so far as to say, many of them could hang with him back in the 90s.  That is a whole different discussion though that has to do with people downplaying the talent that today's players have. Logic dictates that with the increase in money and popularity of a sport, more and more talent will come out of the general population attracted to the sport.  That I believe is what has largely happened, as well as the distance arms race due to how helpful being a great driver of the ball can be (as it has always been).

Go watch the highlight reel of the 2000 US Open and then try to say that with a straight face.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Nard_S

[clevited]

42 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Go watch the highlight reel of the 2000 US Open and then try to say that with a straight face.

 

 

Seen it, remember, I am a Tiger Woods fan, grew up watching him and he is a big part of why I got into the game.  He made golf "cool".  

 

My straight face says the following....

 

 

 

I am liking that depth in the 2019 US Open.

Edited October 21, 2020 by clevited

[bscinstnct]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Again, you aren't going to see the level of accomplished player you talk about probably ever again.  I could be wrong but I would seriously put money on what I said and all because of parity of talent, you aren't going to see Tiger or Jack or even Phil ever again.  You will not see your measure of accomplishment but not for lack of talent, but because the competition is that much more than it used to be.

 

Tiger, at 43 years old, with a dilapidated pair of legs and a light switch plate screwed to his back

 

Quickly rose within months from #1200 in the world to #5

 

Won the Tour Championship against the uber-golfers

 

And beat them all at Augusta 

 

After basically a 2 year layoff during which he was on drugs and couldn’t even walk.

 

 

Imagine what TW 1.0 would do to these chumps?

 

; )

 

Here. I mean, TW used to do this week in and week out

 

 

 

 

 

[Nard_S]

46 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Seen it, remember, I am a Tiger Woods fan, grew up watching him and he is a big part of why I got into the game.  He made golf "cool".  

 

My straight face says the following....

 

 

 

I am liking that depth in the 2019 US Open.

I like the one w/ 10 major wins below the winner over the one w/ 6.

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

I like the one w/ 10 major wins below the winner over the one w/ 6.

 

Fun to ponder how many majors that list below Woodland likely would have won back in Ernie's hay day playing as well as they do today with the tougher fields, larger purses, longer and heavily modified courses with greens like concrete.  Fun to ponder for sure. 😘

[clevited]

42 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Tiger, at 43 years old, with a dilapidated pair of legs and a light switch plate screwed to his back

 

Quickly rose within months from #1200 in the world to #5

 

Won the Tour Championship against the uber-golfers

 

And beat them all at Augusta 

 

After basically a 2 year layoff during which he was on drugs and couldn’t even walk.

 

 

Imagine what TW 1.0 would do to these chumps?

 

; )

 

Here. I mean, TW used to do this week in and week out

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a big Tiger fan you know.  His recovery and rise in the world rankings was awesome for sure. Regardless of all of the Tiger highlights like this I have seen and remember, I will always maintain that the talent level of today's players is severely under rated.  Many of these guys are able to shape the ball at will, but just don't because it isn't the percentage play.  It isn't the best way to attack a course.  I would say it never was in fact.    

 

Just a tidbit to help prove that these guys can shape the ball at will.  Yes I fully understand it isn't during a tournament nor are they firing at a green but it is a tidbit of evidence showing these guys are still very talented.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

I am a big Tiger fan you know.  His recovery and rise in the world rankings was awesome for sure. Regardless of all of the Tiger highlights like this I have seen and remember, I will always maintain that the talent level of today's players is severely under rated.  Many of these guys are able to shape the ball at will, but just don't because it isn't the percentage play.  It isn't the best way to attack a course.  I would say it never was in fact.    

 

Just a tidbit to help prove that these guys can shape the ball at will.  Yes I fully understand it isn't during a tournament nor are they firing at a green but it is a tidbit of evidence showing these guys are still very talented.

 

 

 

Nice. Yeah, pro golfers have stupid skills, they can work a ball like an MLB pitcher. The current crop is as talented as has ever been out there.

 

But if you look at owgr, there’s nobody there with close to TW 1.0 game.

 

You got DJ at #1. Consider how huge the gap is between DJ and TW 1.0

 

In fact, DJ said it best ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by bscinstnct

[Bubbtubbs]

On 10/17/2020 at 5:03 PM, mahonie said:

I read that the average age of Sky’s golf audience in the UK is 57 and less than 5% are under 25.

In fairness, a lot of us younger crowd don't have cable/satellite television and refuse to watch advertisements, so we have other methods of watching tournaments that don't involve Sky or the Golf Channel.