Matthew Fitzpatrick whines about BDC...

[clevited]

20 minutes ago, mahonie said:

The game used to be about playing shots, now it’s just about hitting the ball...only half the game it used to be.

 

Explain what you mean by hitting shots.  What constitutes the ideal game for you?

[Nard_S]

14 minutes ago, mahonie said:

The game used to be about playing shots, now it’s just about hitting the ball...only half the game it used to be.

True and.....

 

They played a ball that did not fly straight and got bullied by the wind more.

Had heavy drivers that were 40% of the size  and with a COR @.76  

Putted w/ wobbly balls on spiked up greens.

Yeah, they sucked didn't they.

Not saying I want to go back to all of that but the art of ball command was big deal then. That command had to extend to long irons too, clubs which were actually relevant and made big boy golf more inspiring in their challenges. Norman at The Open (1993) is still the best exhibition of driving I've ever seen.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

True and.....

 

They played a ball that did not fly straight and got bullied by the wind more.

Had heavy drivers that were 40% of the size  and with a COR @.76  

Putted w/ wobbly balls on spiked up greens.

Yeah, they sucked didn't they.

Not saying I want to go back to all of that but the art of ball command was big deal then. That command had to extend to long irons too, clubs which were actually relevant and made big boy golf more inspiring in their challenges. Norman at The Open (1993) is still the best exhibition of driving I've ever seen.

 

 

The golfers didn't suck, but their equipment did and the conditions under which they played were generally poor.

Edited October 16, 2020 by ThinkingPlus

[Dr. Block]

11 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

True and.....

 

They played a ball that did not fly straight and got bullied by the wind more.

Had heavy drivers that were 40% of the size  and with a COR @.76  

Putted w/ wobbly balls on spiked up greens.

Yeah, they sucked didn't they.

Not saying I want to go back to all of that but the art of ball command was big deal then. That command had to extend to long irons too, clubs which were actually relevant and made big boy golf more inspiring in their challenges. Norman at The Open (1993) is still the best exhibition of driving I've ever seen.

 

 

I'll definitely second the ball being bullied by the wind.  Even going back to the wound Titleist Professional of the late 90's is night and day compared to todays ball. 

[Dr. Block]

14 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The golfers didn't suck, but their equipment did and the conditions under which they played were generally poor.

The equipment did not suck.  Some of the finest blade irons ever conceived were born in that era.  And the persimmon heads made by Tony Penna and others at MacGregor during the 50's were sought after and used all the way up to the switch over to steel in the 90's. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Dr. Block

[clevited]

23 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

True and.....

 

They played a ball that did not fly straight and got bullied by the wind more.

Had heavy drivers that were 40% of the size  and with a COR @.76  

Putted w/ wobbly balls on spiked up greens.

Yeah, they sucked didn't they.

Not saying I want to go back to all of that but the art of ball command was big deal then. That command had to extend to long irons too, clubs which were actually relevant and made big boy golf more inspiring in their challenges. Norman at The Open (1993) is still the best exhibition of driving I've ever seen.

 

 

And when my dad was young he walked barefoot uphill both ways to school in chest deep snow and it was -20F.  

[gvogel]

35 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Explain what you mean by hitting shots.  What constitutes the ideal game for you?

Mahonie,

Don't go down that rabbit hole.  It's like pornography.  Most people know it when they see it, but it is darn difficult to define it.  Some people don't know it when they see it.  Trying to convince those people that it is pornographic is a waste of time.

[OrangeGravy]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

I know you didn't ask me this question, but I really can't help myself.  The rules dictate certain perameters to play the game by.  You are allowed to have a bag full of 14 tools to accomplish the lowest score possible.  The performance of these 14 tools has been set in stone for quite some time, as has the ball.  The object is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes with these 14 tools.  There are no rules about how many times you must use a certain club, or the type of shot you must hit.  There are no rules saying you have to have a LW, SW, PW 9i-3i etc, you can have any mix you want.  You don't even need to use a putter if you don't want.  Everyone's tool set is different based on the course they are trying to "take apart" in the least moves as possible.  It is a puzzle in so far as how you go about using the tools you have and the skills you possess to beat the other dozens of guys or gals on a tournament weekend.  There is no true right or wrong way to play the game.  Even changing a ball or rolling back equipment isn't going to magically make the best player win every week.  What makes the best player is completely subjective.  I would argue that no one tournament can ever dictate who that is.  The best players are the ones that win frequently and under immense pressure on Sunday.  To me, dealing with the pressure alone is a HUGE skill that might outway almost every other golf skill their is.  Tiger had that, Jack had that, lots of these up and coming guys are full of confidence and talent in that department.

 

As has been said a million times, sports evolve.  Football used to be all about running, but the overwhelming successful strategy of the passing game was discovered and exploited.  It is a different game but entertaining all the same.  Hockey, used to be about enforcers smacking guys all over the place and a handful of great puck handlers dancing through the big slow enforcers.  Now, speed is the game and structure.  That was found to be effective, and later on, something else might be found more effective.  Baseball, the shift, and the change to going much more often for the long ball, need I say more?      

  

Changing the RULES of football steered it toward passing vs running. Just about every single rule change in football over the last 15 years has been toward that end. The players/coaches didn't change it, they just altered their approach to take advantage of the new rules. If the football was officiated under the guidelines of 1985, the game would look the same at is did in 1985 for the most part. 

[mahonie]

34 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Explain what you mean by hitting shots.  What constitutes the ideal game for you?

The only time playing with modern equipment comes close to the game played 25+ years ago is when the wind is blowing hard, I’m talking 4 club wind. Controlling the modern ball in those conditions is akin to playing a balata in normal conditions back then. You had to think about shape and trajectory on every shot. Yes it was more of a challenge than today’s game but...and this is the bit that modern players will never get...it was so much more satisfying. If you hate playing in the wind now, you’ll never be converted, but if you love the wind on the course you may start to understand.

 

Nowadays you rarely think about shape or trajectory, you’re looking for the distance number, pick out the club that’s closest to that number and just hit the ball. Shape and trajectory is playing shots, hitting the ball to a number is exactly that, just hitting the ball.

 

I can’t really explain it better than that.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

The equipment did not suck.  Some of the finest blade irons ever conceived were born in that era.  And the persimmon heads made by Tony Penna and others at MacGregor during the 50's were sought after and used all the way up to the switch over to steel in the 90's. 

As pieces of art they were fine.  As golf clubs and balls they were poorly designed and/or manufactured.  Blades had high CG and CG close to the hosel because the hosels were too long.  That made them nearly impossible to hit well.  Woods had heavy, stiff steel shafts making it harder to generate clubhead speed.  Balata balls were fragile and would eventually go out of round.  Players carried tools to check roundness and would periodically remove balls from play for that reason.  The balls were also easy to cut and manufacturing variances were large.

 

All of that being said, it wasn't intentional.  It was the best that could be produced given the knowledge, materials, and technology available at the time.

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, OrangeGravy said:

Changing the RULES of football steered it toward passing vs running. Just about every single rule change in football over the last 15 years has been toward that end. The players/coaches didn't change it, they just altered their approach to take advantage of the new rules. If the football was officiated under the guidelines of 1985, the game would look the same at is did in 1985 for the most part. 

 

That might very well be a significant part of what started the passing, but not all teams adopted it and it evolved quickly with some teams.  Teams found ways to maximize the passing game to take advantage of defenses that just couldn't adapt (RAMS for example).  They basically found the best strategy within the rules that allowed them to score points.  This is much like golf today.  Within the rules of the game, players have adapted and found the best way to score well given their individual capablities.  It has come to light that in many circumstances, it is in your best interest to hit it as far as you can, and also to limit the amount of shaping or low success rate wizardry you need to pull off a shot.  Mitigating risk I call that.  Courses changed drastically over the years too making distance even more important.  This is especailly true with green complexes that often require a steep angle of decent and lots of spin in order to score well, thus making it that much more important to be as close as possible for approach shots.

 

Another thing to think about regarding football.  Why did they change the rules?  Was it to preserve the game?  Last I read, and I cerainly could be wrong, was that it was to attract more people to the game by making it more entertaining.  It seems at least on the surface they were quite successful.

 

Does golf need to do that?

[mahonie]

16 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Mahonie,

Don't go down that rabbit hole.  It's like pornography.  Most people know it when they see it, but it is darn difficult to define it.  Some people don't know it when they see it.  Trying to convince those people that it is pornographic is a waste of time.

I gave it a go ^^^ 👍

[OrangeGravy]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

 

-Baseball has rules, rules that have been around for a long time.  Runs are being scored within those rules.  Lots of homeruns are being hit these days largely due to a change in strategy.  The shift is a change in strategy to help a team defend better against a hitter.  I don't see baseball rolling back bats, or balls or making thier stadiums bigger.  Look at the Yankees, they seemingly created a home run hitting park on purpose long ago and have always built their teams to be homerun monsters.

 

-Steroid use is a pretty unanimious no go in all athletic sports, including golf.

 

-Golf is unique in so far as what wins is the least amount of strokes wins the tournament or game.  Whatever way players go about doing that within the rules of the game, is perfectly acceptable.  Changing the game based on an aesthetic that less than half of the golfing population (including elite players) share, is just an illogical thing to do.  Especially when you actually sit down and consider how big of a change that would mean.  

 

-If you go play a golf course with Bryson for instance, you can tell him to hit 4 iron only off the tee and he will still beat you so badly due to all of his other immense skills, not forgetting about his putting on stupid fast greens that you will probably become the biggest Bryson fan ever.

Baseball doesn't prove your point either. Baseball has changed the ball many, many times over the years to either slow it down or speed it up (off the bat). Any sport that is OFFICIATED during a game will inevitably NOT prove your point either. The "powers" that be use the officials to change how the game is played. Hockey, Basketball, Football have all changed how they call a game to influence how the game is played. That is exactly the equivalent of the USGA/R&A changing equipment rules to alter how the game is played, because that is the only thing they can change. This debate is no different than NFL fans arguing over how neutering defenses has changed the game or NBA fans arguing about which game was better, the one when you could play defense or the current one where you can't. 

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, mahonie said:

The only time playing with modern equipment comes close to the game played 25+ years ago is when the wind is blowing hard, I’m talking 4 club wind. Controlling the modern ball in those conditions is akin to playing a balata in normal conditions back then. You had to think about shape and trajectory on every shot. Yes it was more of a challenge than today’s game but...and this is the bit that modern players will never get...it was so much more satisfying. If you hate playing in the wind now, you’ll never be converted, but if you love the wind on the course you may start to understand.

 

Nowadays you rarely think about shape or trajectory, you’re looking for the distance number, pick out the club that’s closest to that number and just hit the ball. Shape and trajectory is playing shots, hitting the ball to a number is exactly that, just hitting the ball.

 

I can’t really explain it better than that.

 

I grew up playing with persimmon/laminated clubs, blades, and shortly after tiny steel headed drivers.  I found the occaisional balata or tour 90 ball to hit as well.  I loved the feel of the wound balls but I don't recall having any more issues playing the game with those vs the rock flights of the time.  I remember what it was like and don't miss any of it really.  Back then, you couldn't get a club that fit your swing or speed.  You were being handicapped by equipment.  Today, I can get fit for custom equipment, measured by devices that help me really dial in my natural abilites.  I think this puts everyone on a more even playing field today and allows the guys that back in the day, were poorly fit to their equipment actually show their stuff.  That is another whole subject though.

 

What I want to say is, that if you miss that so much, and feel that is the best way to play the game, well nothing is stopping you from enjoying playing the game with said equipment.  You can still buy old balata or titelist professional balls (I even have some for testing purposes.  Watch out, many have shrunk due to age and no longer play how they once did but still soft and plenty of spin, but not much more than prov1).  You can go out and play the game you enjoy the most, while the rest of us go unaffected.  Win win I say.

[Dr. Block]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

As pieces of art they were fine.  As golf clubs and balls they were poorly designed and/or manufactured.  Blades had high CG and CG close to the hosel because the hosels were too long.  That made them nearly impossible to hit well.  Woods had heavy, stiff steel shafts making it harder to generate clubhead speed.  Balata balls were fragile and would eventually go out of round.  Players carried tools to check roundness and would periodically remove balls from play for that reason.  The balls were also easy to cut and manufacturing variances were large.

 

All of that being said, it wasn't intentional.  It was the best that could be produced given the knowledge, materials, and technology available at the time.

So you would agree that your original post lacked a frame of reference?  Also, did you read the part about valued persimmon blocks and head designs being used for some odd 40 years?  If something that was made in 1950 was used for that long, it must not of "sucked" as you so eloquently put it. 

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

As pieces of art they were fine.  As golf clubs and balls they were poorly designed and/or manufactured.  Blades had high CG and CG close to the hosel because the hosels were too long.  That made them nearly impossible to hit well.  Woods had heavy, stiff steel shafts making it harder to generate clubhead speed.  Balata balls were fragile and would eventually go out of round.  Players carried tools to check roundness and would periodically remove balls from play for that reason.  The balls were also easy to cut and manufacturing variances were large.

 

All of that being said, it wasn't intentional.  It was the best that could be produced given the knowledge, materials, and technology available at the time.

 

Love me some progress!  I don't miss any of that old junk, other than how they looked and it was quite interesting the feel of a balata marshmellow and the stay puff smiley you got when you bladed it.  Yep memories, memories I don't mind forgetting.

[clevited]

Just now, Dr. Block said:

So you would agree that your original post lacked a frame of reference?  Also, did you read the part about valued persimmon blocks and head designs being used for some odd 40 years?  If something that was made in 1950 was used for that long, it must not of "sucked" as you so eloquently put it. 

 

I think she means "sucked" from an engineering/functional design perspective.  At least that is how I understand it.  Just like a muscle car from the 50s was beautiful and the best they could do for the time, they SUCK from and engineering and functional design perspective, among others.

[Dr. Block]

Just now, clevited said:

 

Love me some progress!  I don't miss any of that old junk, other than how they looked and it was quite interesting the feel of a balata marshmellow and the stay puff smiley you got when you bladed it.  Yep memories, memories I don't mind forgetting.

I've got no issues with progress.  I do have issues with lack or respect.  To make a general statement demeaning generations of great clubmakers is pure short-pants BS

[Dr. Block]

14 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I think she means "sucked" from an engineering/functional design perspective.  At least that is how I understand it.  Just like a muscle car from the 50s was beautiful and the best they could do for the time, they SUCK from and engineering and functional design perspective, among others.

So they suck on things?   Old clubs and old cars are amazing demonstrations of engineering, just like my automatic watch is an amazing display of what human beings are capable of making.  Just because things are made differently and or more advanced now does not mean accomplishments of the past are somehow now garbage in a general sense.  I see no logic in that line of thinking - maybe you can help me. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Dr. Block

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I've got no issues with progress.  I do have issues with lack or respect.  To make a general statement demeaning generations of great clubmakers is pure short-pants BS

 

But its not an insult if it is true, is it?

 

Edit:  Should say its not lack of respect if true, to use your exact words.

Edited October 16, 2020 by clevited

[Dr. Block]

Just now, clevited said:

 

But its not an insult if it is true, is it?

explain how it's true?  I understand new equipment has evolved, but that's not what was originally said. 

[mahonie]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I grew up playing with persimmon/laminated clubs, blades, and shortly after tiny steel headed drivers.  I found the occaisional balata or tour 90 ball to hit as well.  I loved the feel of the wound balls but I don't recall having any more issues playing the game with those vs the rock flights of the time.  I remember what it was like and don't miss any of it really.  Back then, you couldn't get a club that fit your swing or speed.  You were being handicapped by equipment.  Today, I can get fit for custom equipment, measured by devices that help me really dial in my natural abilites.  I think this puts everyone on a more even playing field today and allows the guys that back in the day, were poorly fit to their equipment actually show their stuff.  That is another whole subject though.

 

What I want to say is, that if you miss that so much, and feel that is the best way to play the game, well nothing is stopping you from enjoying playing the game with said equipment.  You can still buy old balata or titelist professional balls (I even have some for testing purposes.  Watch out, many have shrunk due to age and no longer play how they once did but still soft and plenty of spin, but not much more than prov1).  You can go out and play the game you enjoy the most, while the rest of us go unaffected.  Win win I say.

So if you were so handicapped by the equipment and you don’t really miss any of that old stuff, what was it that got you into the game in the first place?

[Dr. Block]

Incase you whipper-snappers didn't know, Fred Couples used a 1950's Mac Persimmon head from college all the way till the early 90's.  That clubhead must have really been a piece of crap though. 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

47 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The golfers didn't suck, but their equipment did and the conditions under which they played were generally poor.

...but still...weekend warriors playing once a week could still break 80. All equipment sucks to the less skilled 🤔

[mahonie]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Incase you whipper-snappers didn't know, Fred Couples used a 1950's Mac Persimmon head from college all the way till the early 90's.  That clubhead must have really been a piece of crap though. 

Iirc, Jack used the same Mac 3-wood for most of his career including all of his Majors.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, mahonie said:

So if you were so handicapped by the equipment and you don’t really miss any of that old stuff, what was it that got you into the game in the first place?

 

It was fun to smack a ball and watch it go far.  I found walking on and playing a game on a park like golf course enjoyable.  I enjoyed improving my skills.  I enjoyed hitting balls at the range hard as I could and seeing how far they would go.  I enjoyed putting and chipping.  I enjoyed attempting to cut the corner of a particular par 4 over the trees because It was fun and awesome when you pulled it off.  I enjoyed discovering a swing tweak that helped me hit it further or better.  I enjoyed trying to hit a slice around a dogleg where the trees where way too high.  I enjoyed the tiny window I had to knock an errant tee shot out of the woods.  The scrambling was always lots of fun and challenging.  I enjoyed the close shots on par 3s.  The downwind downhill perfectly bombed drives down a narrow as heck fairway, rare but awesome.  

 

I enjoyed tons about golf when I first started playing.  Absolutely none of it was related to the old crappy golf clubs I had.  I still have my Macgregors and my off brand steel headed tiny woods.  Don't miss them though, they are rotting in my parents shed back home.

[mahonie]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

It was fun to smack a ball and watch it go far.  I found walking on and playing a game on a park like golf course enjoyable.  I enjoyed improving my skills.  I enjoyed hitting balls at the range hard as I could and seeing how far they would go.  I enjoyed putting and chipping.  I enjoyed attempting to cut the corner of a particular par 4 over the trees because It was fun and awesome when you pulled it off.  I enjoyed discovering a swing tweak that helped me hit it further or better.  I enjoyed trying to hit a slice around a dogleg where the trees where way too high.  I enjoyed the tiny window I had to knock an errant tee shot out of the woods.  The scrambling was always lots of fun and challenging.  I enjoyed the close shots on par 3s.  The downwind downhill perfectly bombed drives down a narrow as heck fairway, rare but awesome.  

 

I enjoyed tons about golf when I first started playing.  Absolutely none of it was related to the old crappy golf clubs I had.  I still have my Macgregors and my off brand steel headed tiny woods.  Don't miss them though, they are rotting in my parents shed back home.

Your first paragraph, which is a great description of how fantastic golf used to be by the way, would not have been possible with the old equipment that is now rotting in the shed. You could not have had the same level of enjoyment with modern equipment...or the same level of satisfaction pulling off those shots.

[ThinkingPlus]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

So you would agree that your original post lacked a frame of reference?  Also, did you read the part about valued persimmon blocks and head designs being used for some odd 40 years?  If something that was made in 1950 was used for that long, it must not of "sucked" as you so eloquently put it. 

It was played for 40 years because there was nothing else available that performed better or out of nostalgia.  As soon as a better performing product was available, most golfers switched.

[clevited]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Incase you whipper-snappers didn't know, Fred Couples used a 1950's Mac Persimmon head from college all the way till the early 90's.  That clubhead must have really been a piece of crap though. 

 

 

If you think of golf clubs like cars its easier to see.  Old cars are beautiful and they were amazing for the time.  But if you had to take a trip across the country, through the mountains and desert, would you take a muscle car from the 50s-60s, or would you take a modern vehicle?  The comparison is easy.  Old clubs were fine for their day, but Boom Boom probably has gained a lot today with his modern "vehicle" vs his beautiful "muscle car" of yester year.  It is no doubt more comfortable, a smoother experience and the extra horsepower isn't such a bad thing either.

 

 

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, mahonie said:

Your first paragraph, which is a great description of how fantastic golf used to be by the way, would not have been possible with the old equipment that is now rotting in the shed. You could not have had the same level of enjoyment with modern equipment...or the same level of satisfaction pulling off those shots.

 

Untrue.  I have just as much if not more fun playing the game today as I ever have.  My skills keep improving, and I find new goals to go after all the time.  Each course plays different and I practice with all of my clubs, for when or if I will need them.  I also enjoy tinkering and trying to find clubs that fit my swing.  I build my own clubs and have a loft lie machine for tweaks.  I love lots of things about golf.  In fact, I am certain I love it more than ever really.  Also love watching it on tv more than I ever did with the exception of Tiger and Daly.  Loved watching them bomb the ball most of all.  Love watching these newer guys throw caution to the wind and give it. 

 

Edit:  Forgot to say that yes, I enjoy pulling off shots just as much if not more than I ever did with my old clubs that didn't suit me.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by clevited