Could a top ten golfer today survived in pre 60’s golf?

[PureStrikes54]

12 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Cool. So why do they need a 460 then? 

 

The question in the thread was could they have survived with pre 1960's technology not your preference of driver head size...

[milesgiles]

11 minutes ago, PureStrikes54 said:

 

The question in the thread was could they have survived with pre 1960's technology not your preference of driver head size...

 

True but I’ll allow you to answer my question anyway 

[PureStrikes54]

14 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

True but I’ll allow you to answer my question anyway 

 

Because technology improves, things change...and that is the size the governing bodies decided on. Distance improvements on center faced contact with proper impact dynamics have been maxed out for years and technology improvements each year are miniscule and designed at better performance on off center hits/spin reduction/etc.

 

Golf club companies are also in the business of selling equipment to the masses and having their tour players advertise it through TV exposure/wins/etc. Golf is still insanely difficult for the average joe demographic even with 460 cc's. It would be a devastating blow to the golf club business model to have the masses and tour players playing different setups and I would guess they lobby heavy to the governing bodies not to make that kind of move. 

[Fairway14]

Looking back 150 years, the older the equipment, the more skill required to play consistently solid, accurate golf shots.

[milesgiles]

46 minutes ago, PureStrikes54 said:

 

Because technology improves, things change...and that is the size the governing bodies decided on. Distance improvements on center faced contact with proper impact dynamics have been maxed out for years and technology improvements each year are miniscule and designed at better performance on off center hits/spin reduction/etc.

 

Golf club companies are also in the business of selling equipment to the masses and having their tour players advertise it through TV exposure/wins/etc. Golf is still insanely difficult for the average joe demographic even with 460 cc's. It would be a devastating blow to the golf club business model to have the masses and tour players playing different setups and I would guess they lobby heavy to the governing bodies not to make that kind of move. 

 

Faldo says the 460 is too forgiving on the off centre hit at least for the pro’s. It’s entirely relevant to the original question since we’re asking if they could cope on course with older clubs.

You absolutely would not see the same top 100 in the same order if they were using old clubs. Technology has helped the faster swinging  but less accurate player significantly more than the rest.

Can’t see how that is arguable can list you a dozen pro’s who say the same thing 

[Fairway14]

22 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Faldo says the 460 is too forgiving on the off centre hit at least for the pro’s.

 

Interesting comment by Faldo.

For my own game I've tried lots of 450CC to 460CC drivers but found the head size I strike consistently the best is 350 to 360CC.

It's not that I don't hit great drives with the large head, it's just that 350CC seems easier to look at, swing, square-at-impact, closer in size to my 3-wood etc...

20 years ago the golf industry companies quickly moved from 260 CC size driver heads to 460CC head size. For a couple of years it seemed like a race between manufacturers, all touting "bigger is better".  So, sizes such as 300, 350, or 400CC were not produced for long and few players used those sizes much before moving on to 460CC.

I like my 355CC driver head . It certainly does not look "small". If companies produced some modern tech 350CC size heads and Tour players were told to use same I expect no player would suffer from "lack of forgiveness" or "lack of distance" and some would enjoy improved accuracy.

[golfsticks]

If they could get past car pooling sure, they could survive. 

[xmanhockey7]

14 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Not necessarily. I don’t think this is really the forum for this discussion, but golf has gone towards the bigger, stronger guys and away from the skilful, accurate player. CHS is the first priority for an aspiring pro now

Lol so they’re stronger and hit it farther. I don’t know why that wouldn’t work if they went back in time. Give them a week or two to get used to the old equipment. They’d be fine. 

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Lol so they’re stronger and hit it farther. I don’t know why that wouldn’t work if they went back in time. Give them a week or two to get used to the old equipment. They’d be fine. 

 

No, because their misses would be much worse.

 

the more highly skilled ball strikers would be fine in any era. Those that have benefitted the most from toasters on a stick, basically the biggest and strongest, would struggle.

 

its not even arguable, just common sense 

[xmanhockey7]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

No, because their misses would be much worse.

 

the more highly skilled ball strikers would be fine in any era. Those that have benefitted the most from toasters on a stick, basically the biggest and strongest, would struggle.

 

its not even arguable, just common sense 

I don’t know why the best players in the world would not be able to handle a less forgiving club. They’re still pretty dang good at hitting the center of the face. Obviously no way of actually knowing, but I’d argue the best players from either era would hang in both. 

[milesgiles]

58 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

I don’t know why the best players in the world would not be able to handle a less forgiving club. They’re still pretty dang good at hitting the center of the face. Obviously no way of actually knowing, but I’d argue the best players from either era would hang in both. 

 

All other things being equal, is a faster swinger of the golf club not going to be less accurate in hitting the sweetspot than a slower swinger?

 

are YOU more accurate if you swing as hard as possible, as opposed to taking a controlled swing?

 

come on brah..

[Simpsonia]

Is your presumption that the modern players would literally never be able to hit the fairway at all? Because if you look at the FIR numbers, the bombers (DJ, Rory, Rahm, etc) are only 10% behind those "accurate" players in FIR stats. I'm not sure if 7 more fairways over a 72 hole tourney is going to absolutely break these guys... 

[goaliedad30]

It seems to me that during that era, with persimmon and balata, the courses were also playing much shorter. 6,800 yards was "long", and I don't think US Open venues got over 7,000 yards until the 1970's.

 

So, you have to also consider what today's players would do, playing "vintage" technology, on "vintage" length courses (to some extent, with slower green speeds as well).

 

I only know one thing for certain - they'd still kick my sorry butt! 🙂

[xmanhockey7]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

All other things being equal, is a faster swinger of the golf club not going to be less accurate in hitting the sweetspot than a slower swinger?

 

are YOU more accurate if you swing as hard as possible, as opposed to taking a controlled swing?

 

come on brah..

Nope. Faster swinging player won’t have more or less issues than a slower swinging player. I super slow swing for me would be 90mph. For some people 90mph is swinging out of their shoes. It’s all relative. And even back then it’s not like guys were just trying to bunt drivers out there. They took a swing at it. 

[pinhigh27]

6 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Faldo says the 460 is too forgiving on the off centre hit at least for the pro’s. It’s entirely relevant to the original question since we’re asking if they could cope on course with older clubs.

You absolutely would not see the same top 100 in the same order if they were using old clubs. Technology has helped the faster swinging  but less accurate player significantly more than the rest.

Can’t see how that is arguable can list you a dozen pro’s who say the same thing 

Does dustin johnson magically hit his 3 wood way worse than brian gay does? I would say dustin johnson is way more skillful off the tee than someone like gay is. 

 

This narrative of bombers who swing out of their shoes but couldn't keep a more demanding club on the planet is so stupid and there is absolutely no evidence of it being true. 

 

You know who became obsolete with this generation of clubs? The people who are both short and spray it, a la luke donald. I would call that a lack of skill personally. 

 

Jack was probably swinging around 120 based on his yardages, perhaps even more. 

 

Who knew that in a game of trying to get the ball in a hole, that it was generally beneficial to get the ball close to the hole as soon as possible?

 

[pinhigh27]

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

No, because their misses would be much worse.

 

the more highly skilled ball strikers would be fine in any era. Those that have benefitted the most from toasters on a stick, basically the biggest and strongest, would struggle.

 

its not even arguable, just common sense 

So who is an example of a player you think would flounder in the 60s? Who is your prototypical elite golfer who couldn't adjust to a more demanding club

[dubbelbogey]

Eh - a modern 5wood is somewhere in the 42-43" range and the clubface area is comparable to an older driver. The best modern players can reliably deliver that clubface accurately - all day long. 

 

They'd do just fine with the old gear, given a bit of time to adjust, of course.

 

I see nothing to indicate that the accuracy skills in golf have gone backwards since the 60s. Given that, and that today's golfer are generally taller, stronger, more athletic and have more refined training regimens, I would take today's top-10 as the ones who would come out on top.

[Obee]

On 11/27/2020 at 8:15 PM, Soloman1 said:

You haven't lived until you've seen and heard a Tour Balata 100 sizzle as it flew low, rising after about 80yards and drawing back into a fairway, hit by a man in tasseled leather shoes in spikes, a dark leather glove, wearing plaid pants and a visor who drank black coffee and scotch.

 

Good Lord, we were studs.

 

 

 

 

DAMMMMMNNNNNN RIGHT!!!! 🙂

[SkiSchoolPro]

1 hour ago, pinhigh27 said:

 

 

You know who became obsolete with this generation of clubs? The people who are both short and spray it, a la luke donald. I would call that a lack of skill personally. 

 

 

 

In 2011, Luke Donald ranked #1 in Strokes Gained Approach Shots and Putting while being an average driver of the ball (above ave fairways hit, below ave distance). He also had a good short game and was one of the best bunker players.

 

Obviously, he hasn't played nearly as well in recent years.

 

I agree that he hasn't benefited from the newer equipment but he certainly had some skill a decade ago when he was OWGR #1.

[pinhigh27]

7 minutes ago, SkiSchoolPro said:

In 2011, Luke Donald ranked #1 in Strokes Gained Approach Shots and Putting while being an average driver of the ball (above ave fairways hit, below ave distance). He also had a good short game and was one of the best bunker players.

 

Obviously, he hasn't played nearly as well in recent years.

 

I agree that he hasn't benefited from the newer equipment but he certainly had some skill a decade ago when he was OWGR #1.

I was specifically referring to driving skill .  That year he was uncharacteristically accurate off the tee and had a decent strokes gained driving , while every other year since he has hit it short and relatively crooked and been among the worst drivers of the ball. 

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Nope. Faster swinging player won’t have more or less issues than a slower swinging player. I super slow swing for me would be 90mph. For some people 90mph is swinging out of their shoes. It’s all relative. And even back then it’s not like guys were just trying to bunt drivers out there. They took a swing at it. 

 

I specifically said all other things being equal.. you’re wrong. (See Montes recent thread)

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

Does dustin johnson magically hit his 3 wood way worse than brian gay does? I would say dustin johnson is way more skillful off the tee than someone like gay is. 

 

This narrative of bombers who swing out of their shoes but couldn't keep a more demanding club on the planet is so stupid and there is absolutely no evidence of it being true. 

 

You know who became obsolete with this generation of clubs? The people who are both short and spray it, a la luke donald. I would call that a lack of skill personally. 

 

Jack was probably swinging around 120 based on his yardages, perhaps even more. 

 

Who knew that in a game of trying to get the ball in a hole, that it was generally beneficial to get the ball close to the hole as soon as possible?

 

 

Comparing DJ (world number 1) to Brian Gay (who) isn’t keeping all things equal, is it..

[pinhigh27]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

Comparing DJ (world number 1) to Brian Gay (who) isn’t keeping all things equal, is it..

Your post says top ten. So which one is it 

[milesgiles]

12 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Your post says top ten. So which one is it 

 

No, it doesn’t 

[James the Hogan Fan]

6 hours ago, dubbelbogey said:

Eh - a modern 5wood is somewhere in the 42-43" range and the clubface area is comparable to an older driver. The best modern players can reliably deliver that clubface accurately - all day long. 

 

They'd do just fine with the old gear, given a bit of time to adjust, of course.

 

I see nothing to indicate that the accuracy skills in golf have gone backwards since the 60s. Given that, and that today's golfer are generally taller, stronger, more athletic and have more refined training regimens, I would take today's top-10 as the ones who would come out on top.

 

But they aren't hitting that modern 5 wood 320 either. Also our modern top 10 would not be able to tweak/optimize swings on monitors. No shaft options, much less shaft fittings, everything is a forged blade/small head wood. Some modern players simply wouldn't adjust to that. Does it affect the top 10? Probably not. But maybe 150-200? Possibly.

 

Regardless, I think the biggest adjustment would be putting and chipping, and whoever figured it out would stay and whoever didn't wouldn't. They'd be putting a much softer feeling ball on basically shag carpet. (The greens in caddyshack for example) Ball slaloming its way to the hole. Putter tech would be the anser in 1966, otherwise a combination of bullseyes, goosenecks, 8802's and cash-ins, and other slender blades of the same style; the mallet certainly isn't a refined technology at the time. Wedge tech would be minimal and preferences for bounces/grinds would be more limited. Like everything else in golf, short game is going to decide this one. 

 

 

 

[xmanhockey7]

5 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I specifically said all other things being equal.. you’re wrong. (See Montes recent thread)

So from what I can tell based on what you’re saying players were way better back in the 60s than they are now. I just can’t imagine someone like DJ going back 80 years looking at a golf club and being likes “what do I do with this? Maybe I’ll try putting it on my head”. 

[pinhigh27]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

No, it doesn’t 

The title of the thread is literally could a top ten golfer today survive pre 60s golf. So which one do you mean 

[pinhigh27]

3 hours ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

But they aren't hitting that modern 5 wood 320 either. Also our modern top 10 would not be able to tweak/optimize swings on monitors. No shaft options, much less shaft fittings, everything is a forged blade/small head wood. Some modern players simply wouldn't adjust to that. Does it affect the top 10? Probably not. But maybe 150-200? Possibly.

 

Regardless, I think the biggest adjustment would be putting and chipping, and whoever figured it out would stay and whoever didn't wouldn't. They'd be putting a much softer feeling ball on basically shag carpet. (The greens in caddyshack for example) Ball slaloming its way to the hole. Putter tech would be the anser in 1966, otherwise a combination of bullseyes, goosenecks, 8802's and cash-ins, and other slender blades of the same style; the mallet certainly isn't a refined technology at the time. Wedge tech would be minimal and preferences for bounces/grinds would be more limited. Like everything else in golf, short game is going to decide this one. 

 

 

 

 

Short game decides little . Short game on slower soft greens is easier not harder . Putter tech is minimal. Ya they might not be used to shaggy greens but again the best in the world adapt . Everyone is playing on the same surface 

 

 

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, xmanhockey7 said:

So from what I can tell based on what you’re saying players were way better back in the 60s than they are now. I just can’t imagine someone like DJ going back 80 years looking at a golf club and being likes “what do I do with this? Maybe I’ll try putting it on my head”. 

 

No, didn’t say that either!

[milesgiles]

55 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

The title of the thread is literally could a top ten golfer today survive pre 60s golf. So which one do you mean 

 

And my answer is not necessarily. Unless you believe:

 

1.it makes no difference to your accuracy if you swing as hard as possible 

 

2.technology, particularly in the driver, benefits everyone equally 

 

 

now, I am positive neither of those is true. Put it together, and the fastest swinging guys benefit the most from modern drivers, and would struggle the most in the 60s

 

As James said as well, the short game has changed beyond recognition 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by milesgiles