The Golf Gear Delusion

Almaviva

Seperate thread to avoid hijacking a specific question in another thread.

Almaviva wrote: »

For pointing out the bluff of snake oil merchants ? Doubt I was letting the cat out of the bag to too many people!

stockdam wrote: »

I think this statement is bang out of order. Many people I know in the business try to give their best opinion and don't try to push clubs onto people just for the sake of it. I'm sure not all are like this but your statement is a bit silly and dramatic.

I will stand over it.

The motivation of the great majority of people in golf club sales is to sell the highest value and margin equipment that they think they can convince the customer to buy (ever come across the sales assitant or professional to utter anything along the following lines : "what have you at the moment? Oh, MX23. They are about four generation of clubs old now. But of course they are no different to todays models beyond a cosmetic swoosh here or there, a dash of colour, and a big marketing campaign. Yours are still in fine condition. Hang on to what you have. No point in wasting a penny on new ones.").

There is a very small minority of sellers whose niche is making an honest attempt to match clubs to a player. That is their USP or angle in the market to attract customers, and many even genuinely believe what they say. But its castles in the air as far as having any practical effect on 99.99999% of the world's golfers results. (And maybe even also for the other 0.00001%). Lots of pseudo science behind staff flexes, kick points, MOI of club heads, club fitting, etc. This stuff has its genuine believers (driven by the club and shaft manufacturers though who need them to keep finding outlets for their gear), but like a religion, has no real foundation. (We did debate this element in another thread last year some time I think).

Golf clubs are all the same. It is only maketing differentiation that attemps to create some distiction, price points, and perceived advantage over the competition:
- forged/cast
- super game improver, game improver, semi-cavity, blade (tour players play cavity backs, but a nine handicapper thinks he is now at such a level that he is 'ready' for a muscle back blade...)
- budget, mid range, premium
- range of shaft options
- 'image management' marketing : Mizuno - the discerning serious golfer, TaylorMade - the most technically innovative and advanced, Nike - well if its good enough for Tiger and Rory...., Cobra - Go Orange!, be like Ricky!, Be a young golf rebel! kick the staid old country club image of golf in the teeth!, etc, etc,
- the club loft, shaft length 'arms race' to hit the ball further, a clear con, although lots of golfers well aware of it at this stage.

When in fact, the one that 'suits' a given customer is the highest profit one the seller thinks he can convince the seller he needs.


And was all this and much more similar, not what neckedit had in mind with his post that took us down this road ?

neckedit wrote: »

From all the people who work in the Golf Retail Sector..............We thank you!! Brilliant!

.

John Divney

I presume this is one of the most talked about, or controversial subjects on golf forums.

I don't doubt the science of custom fitting, and of course the industry is a money making endeavour, but it's a labour of love for some and people do spend careers researching stuff that the major manufacturers didn't in clubmaking.

For me. Outside of lie, shaft flex and shaft weight, I just don't see custom fitting doing anything near the bang for your buck for the average golfer, but if you have the money, why not.

I also have an allergic reaction to the horsehit coming from Taylor made, I hate them.

Almaviva

John Divney wrote: »

I also have an allergic reaction to the horsehit coming from Taylor made, I hate them.

Biggest horsehitters but biggest market share - shows you what works in golf club sales !

Loire

OP: Why do you think they added 500 yards to Augusta National in 2001?

spacecoyote

Almaviva wrote: »

Biggest horsehitters but biggest market share - shows you what works in golf club sales !

Look, I hate the TM shtick, but the reality is I've got a pair of RBZ hybrids and the bloody things are really simple to hit & do travel considerably further than my previous hybrids (my 19* RBZ travels further than my previous 18* Cobra Baffler).

Hype it may be, but there is some truth hidden amongst the bull$h1t

My irons were also a custom fit. Are they considerably different to an off the shelf set...no, but do they give an extra bit of confidence to the player when he's standing over clubs that were set up for him specifically, I believe they do.

And we all know that a considerable chunk of the golf game is played between the ears, so every little confidence boost helps imo!

FixdePitchmark

I think there are honest good guys out there,, I have experience of them. Pros that take such pride in their job , that they would not sell you something if it would not suit or he would need to see you swing.

I came across this in halpenny - he lost a sale. But gained a long term customer.
I came across this with 2 other pros - one on a putter
Another doing work on a club for free
Another going over time by maybe 30 mins on lesson.

Nothing but respect for the lads. I've come across lads talking **** too. But it drops the stats of 99.99999 %. Because i only deal with about the same 10 lads in Dublin. If lads in dublin are good I don't think guys in a small catchment can get a bad name.

So, id like to think golf lads have pride in their game and their job.

stockdam

Nice troll quoting me out of context.

"Lots of pseudo science behind staff flexes, kick points, MOI of club heads, club fitting, etc."..........I agree with this statement but that's not the guy in the shop's fault. Many people believe the hype but that's not what I was talking about.

scrubber72

Just outta curiosity what gear have you almaviva and what do you play off?
I agree with you to a point as most salesmen i have come across are spoofers tbh, but thankfully i have some willpower. My irons are 7 years old and i don't feel the need to change them to soon.
I had one guy tell me I should spend 1800 euro on a full kit change and that it would help me drop 7 shots from 19 to 12. Now sorry but to ask a 19 handicapper to spend 1800 on clubs is a bridge to far. Think of the amount of lessons you could get from a very good teaching pro for that.
Another asked me what my current clubs were and then said "oh no, no, no! you need these" and handed me a club without asking if I was right or left handed.
What makes me laugh is lads buying gear, either in shops or off the internet and haven't tried them at a range or such.

slave1

I don't have a problem with all the gear and different lingo and sales pitches, that I can wade through.
It's the annual replacement policy that's a crock, I don't believe there is the science to continually improve at that rate, the Ping G15 was a great range and outsold the G20 when they subsequently came out (before any G15 price drop) and now we have the G25.
Only benefit is the stupid price drops because of the replacements coming so soon after previous generation, I picked up a brand new R11S for €160 delivered a few weeks back, a club that launched at €399 just over a year previously.

mike12

The thing with a custom fit is that i'd say 75%+ of golfers are standard flex and loft.
My Brother has a set of MX 23 and i bought a set of MX-100 last year the 4 iron is the exact same in both sets but i have project X 6.0 shafts and hit mine around 210 he has regular and i can't hit it over 180 it goes that high.

I also upgraded the shaft in my R11 to give me a flatter ball flight which has given me more distance. The R11 head is no better than the R5 or R7 from 5 years ago but the correct shaft has given me a huge benefit in accuarcy and forgivness.
I have a average swing speed with the drive of 114MPH, but if i was around 100 to 108 then the stock stiff shaft would have been fine.

As regards to sales guys, their job is to sell clubs. The advice given and the club suggested in the other thread seemed reasonable as the poster would have probably ended up upgrading from a starter set the next year.

Mike

slave1

A poor sales guys probably wants to make a sale that day, a good one should be thinking of making a sale to you every other year for the next few years i.e. gain your confidence etc.
I prefer the latter, not sure what my pocker prefers!

kal7

I bought a new driver recently and it added good 20-25 yards with less effort needed. My original set of clubs I bought in 1989, so at least for me the technology has moved on in 24 yrs anyway.

PARlance

Hold the front pages folks....

Salesperson tries to sell
Company decides to market a product

This could change the world we live in!!!

newport2

Sure all clothes are the same too OP, they all cover your body equally well. Hope you don't buy anything but the cheapest of them too.

Why write such a long OP about something that it appears you're too clever to be taken in by? Maybe you're right about custom clubs, maybe you're not good enough at golf to appreciate the difference, I don't know. But if you've decided they're not for you, why waste your time implying that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool and has been taken for a ride?

GreeBo

^
perhaps he was looking for something mad like a discussion?

For Paws

Bit of a storm in a (very small) water hazard.

While I, like most folk, would take any saleman's spiel with a grain of salt, I've never been in a situation where I knew more about the product than the sales person did. I'd kinda assume that the guy would be trying to help me out, and not that he was simply trying to pass off some low grade produce for the sake of a once off big margin sale.

Space Coyote had it exactly right. If you think it helps you, then it will. In 28 years of playing golf I've had 4 sets of irons, so I'm haven't really contributed much to the industry's bottom line, but I'm not adverse to whiling away a half hour in a golf store checking out the latest gear.

And whatever crap the sales guys come out with is nothing to the absolute shiite they have to listen to, everyday.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot. Lots of guys come back to my 'local' golf store to thank the owner for his time & advice.
It works well for him, he gives good product & his customers come again.
Declan Cunningham - take a bow.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

^
perhaps he was looking for something mad like a discussion?

Personally I missed the part in the opening post that suggested a discussion was being sought.

There was one question posed at the end of the post but it seems to be rethorical question or at best a question directed to one individual.

But let's have a discussion.

Almaviva,

Were you a "believer" before you went for your own custom fitting?

What would you say to someone who has come down in handicap as a result of a custom fitting?
I know you went up in HC after yours but how would you explain an improvement in HC after one?

If TaylorMade are the biggest horse****ters around and all clubs are the same, what makes the Burner 2.0 irons a "lovely set of clubs" as you've recently referred to them as being?

ShivasIrons

http://mobileservices.texterity.com/golfdigeststix/20130403/?folio=14&lm=1364943940000&article_id=277215&linkImageSrc=/golfdigeststix/20130403/data/imgpages/mobile_tn2/0014_ugxfvk.png#article_id=277215

Another view.

Almaviva

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Personally I missed the part in the opening post that suggested a discussion was being sought.

There was one question posed at the end of the post but it seems to be rethorical question or at best a question directed to one individual.

But let's have a discussion.

Almaviva,

Were you a "believer" before you went for your own custom fitting?

What would you say to someone who has come down in handicap as a result of a custom fitting?
I know you went up in HC after yours but how would you explain an improvement in HC after one?

If TaylorMade are the biggest horse****ters around and all clubs are the same, what makes the Burner 2.0 irons a "lovely set of clubs" as you've recently referred to them as being?

I didnt start the tangential discussion, but in another thread, was picked up by neckedit on my reply to the OP, and then in my reply to that, by stockdam. As noted by Greebo, it was a bit off topic for that thread. But felt it was both an interesting topic for a golf forum, and that it was reasonable to defend the accusation that one post was out of order.

- 'believer' would be the wrong word. Long time interested in everything golf, and more of a sceptical try anything once kind of venture. I did enjoy the session and the technology was interesting. But switching between different brands, shafts etc producing 40 yard variations in a 6 iron distance had me wondering would that really be true to the real world. But I went with it (despite increasingly doubting the pro's knowledge of metallurgy when he gave a quick bend of the shaft of one of my clubs and pronounced 'the shafts are dead' - OK, they were 15 years old, but I dont think a Trutemper steel shaft 'dies'). And I bought what he specified and gave them a good go. Handicap increased, but that could be me as much as the clubs (new 'live' shafts or not!). The certainly didnt gain me anything. (I think the topic is bigger than bothering too much with my own personal game, but for what its worth for those of you asking, was a 12/13 handicapper at the time, fly a 7 iron 140-145, now off 14, playing Cobra FPs).

- doubtful that any handicap changes are too closely linked to any changes in clubs, let alone minute tweakings. At best, if clubs do make a difference, I do not think enough is understood to genuinely taylor them correctly to someone's swing. Trial and error probably as useful. Would consider that for the elite with very repeating swings (people with plus handicaps) there may be some benefit.

- was pointing someone asking about Burner 2.0s in particular in the direction of a secondhand set that were in excellent condition and for what seemed to me good value rather than buying a new set

- a few points above mention the 'confidence' factor as beneficial. And that may be indeed be so. But that is only placebo (holy water syndrome) and doesnt change the fact that the science the manufacturers gush with is hocum.

I was also more contending, rather than focusing on club fitting (niche segment of the club sales world), that for the majority of golfers (say 5-25hc), a standard length, standard flex, from any of the manufacturers, regardless of price, will allow him to play the same game. And that he should avoid any sales ploy tempting him to buy 'superior' models or brands.

neckedit

Almaviva wrote: »

I didnt start the tangential discussion, but in another thread, was picked up by neckedit on my reply to the OP, and then in my reply to that, by stockdam. As noted by Greebo, it was a bit off topic for that thread. But felt it was both an interesting topic for a golf forum, and that it was reasonable to defend the accusation that one post was out of order.

- 'believer' would be the wrong word. Long time interested in everything golf, and more of a sceptical try anything once kind of venture. I did enjoy the session and the technology was interesting. But switching between different brands, shafts etc producing 40 yard variations in a 6 iron distance had me wondering would that really be true to the real world. But I went with it (despite increasingly doubting the pro's knowledge of metallurgy when he gave a quick bend of the shaft of one of my clubs and pronounced 'the shafts are dead' - OK, they were 15 years old, but I dont think a Trutemper steel shaft 'dies'). And I bought what he specified and gave them a good go. Handicap increased, but that could be me as much as the clubs (new 'live' shafts or not!). The certainly didnt gain me anything. (I think the topic is bigger than bothering too much with my own personal game, but for what its worth for those of you asking, was a 12/13 handicapper at the time, fly a 7 iron 140-145, now off 14, playing Cobra FPs).

- doubtful that any handicap changes are too closely linked to any changes in clubs, let alone minute tweakings. At best, if clubs do make a difference, I do not think enough is understood to genuinely taylor them correctly to someone's swing. Trial and error probably as useful. Would consider that for the elite with very repeating swings (people with plus handicaps) there may be some benefit.

- was pointing someone asking about Burner 2.0s in particular in the direction of a secondhand set that were in excellent condition and for what seemed to me good value rather than buying a new set

- a few points above mention the 'confidence' factor as beneficial. And that may be indeed be so. But that is only placebo (holy water syndrome) and doesnt change the fact that the science the manufacturers gush with is hocum.

I was also more contending, rather than focusing on club fitting (niche segment of the club sales world), that for the majority of golfers (say 5-25hc), a standard length, standard flex, from any of the manufacturers, regardless of price, will allow him to play the same game. And that he should avoid any sales ploy tempting him to buy 'superior' models or brands.

In a previous thread you made a sweeping and false statement with regards to Golf Equipment Sales people, I responded sarcastically, for that I apologise. But to call us "Snake oil" sellers because of your one bad experience with a Pro, is grossly unfair and insulting. If you wish to pm me I would gladly meet with you do a proper fit abd work with you on getting that handicap back where it should be.

Almaviva

neckedit wrote: »

In a previous thread you made a sweeping and false statement with regards to Golf Equipment Sales people, I responded sarcastically, for that I apologise. But to call us "Snake oil" sellers because of your one bad experience with a Pro, is grossly unfair and insulting. If you wish to pm me I would gladly meet with you do a proper fit abd work with you on getting that handicap back where it should be.

Thanks. Apologies also for upping the sarcasm ante and loose language in response.

Will pass, but also kudos and sincerely appreciate the offer of the fitting - fitting was really peripheral to the thrust of my original comment (though yes I did include fitters in the comment), which was to ignore sales folk advocating one club over another as experienced by the poster, suggesting he buy a higher priced Callaway set, rather than Wilsons he had already 'felt' drawn to.

Golf gear is interesting and worthy of discussion ( I may indeed be wrong - but entitled to express an opinion) whatever ones opinion on it - and ultimately yes, I am searching for THE solution (have tried plenty of clubs, read Wishon, etc), but dont think there is anything around at the moment that has any distinction over its competition. The move to peripheral weighted clubs, graphite shafts, and 460CC Ti drivers has genuinely improved the performance of golf clubs over the last 30 years, but such step improvements are very rare, and you do have to take the competitive claims between manufacturers and models with a huge dose of salt.

PARlance

No need for another fitting, I'm fairly sure he's a Rocketballz man

Almaviva, I'm not one for the hype, but you're OP was the polar opposite, the anti hype or devils fire (I see you've got a religious theme going) and I'm not one for that either.

You must have extremely bad experiences with sales people.
Even in the larger golf chains I've found them to be, for the most part, golfers first then salesmen second.

Let us know how the RBZ's work out for you. Single figures in a few months with the extra 50 yards

newport2

Almaviva

If your experience with custom fitting was that you got fitted and then your handicap went up, would that not suggest to you that different clubs do have an influence on how you play? (albeit a bad influence in this case)

I would share some of your scepticism re: new clubs/technology etc. No clubs will make a bad golfer into a good one, not to mention the guys who get a new driver every year stating for a "fact" that each one goes 25 yards further than their last one (one of my mates got asked why he wasn't driving the ball over 400yards at this stage). Nor do I believe that I will hit a different 3 wood 40 yards further than my own, irregardless of the fitting. 10-15yds maybe, with a different trajectory.
That said, fitting does make a difference and even more so if you know what you're looking for, eg you're ballooning shot due to too flexible shafts. My friend has the same irons as me with different shafts. The difference in flight is huge for both of us when we try the others clubs. I also consistantly push shots with his irons as his irons have a flatter lie. I've also hit other guys clubs, they feel totally different, go different distances to my own and different trajectories in some cases. So to say all clubs are the same is simply not true. They may be all of a similar quality, but definitely different ones are better suited to different golfers.

saintastic

mike12 wrote: »

The thing with a custom fit is that i'd say 75%+ of golfers are standard flex and loft.
My Brother has a set of MX 23 and i bought a set of MX-100 last year the 4 iron is the exact same in both sets but i have project X 6.0 shafts and hit mine around 210 he has regular and i can't hit it over 180 it goes that high.

I also upgraded the shaft in my R11 to give me a flatter ball flight which has given me more distance. The R11 head is no better than the R5 or R7 from 5 years ago but the correct shaft has given me a huge benefit in accuarcy and forgivness.
I have a average swing speed with the drive of 114MPH, but if i was around 100 to 108 then the stock stiff shaft would have been fine.

As regards to sales guys, their job is to sell clubs. The advice given and the club suggested in the other thread seemed reasonable as the poster would have probably ended up upgrading from a starter set the next year.

Mike

Great post.

ShriekingSheet

I think sales people in golf give customers exactly what they want.

Usually what they want is an excuse to buy new gear. Or, whether they admit/realise it or not, they want new gear as a way of managing how others percieve them.

It's not exclusive to golf. Look at cars. Assuming they have a few quid, a person's actual performance requirements and the performance of the car they'll buy are poles apart. It's about the look, and what the car says about them to others. Look at the electric car. It's functionally suited to a lot of people, but the only people actually using them are doing so to make a statement about their do-gooder status. There's even a booming custom market in cars, like golf. Young men making minute engine changes, or wholly cosmetic adjustments to the body or alloys, and then they all get together and show each other.

The thing is, this is all totally fine and normal. People want deadly new clubs. They want to impress others. The fact that they can justify buying them by believing the marketing or sales pitch is almost irrelevant. Sales guys are just facilitating them.

The equipment does get better over time, but not annually as TM suggest. Mobile phones are the same, gradually improving, yet people still run out to upgrade from model 6.0 to the far superiror 6.001.. But sure, it makes us happy.

Loire

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Usually what they want is an excuse to buy new gear.

Big +1 to that. That guilty pleasure is hard to beat. A lot of the time too it can be an impulse thing (for me anyway )

Mr. Larson

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I think sales people in golf give customers exactly what they want.

That's it in a nutshell for me. I don't think people are genuinely duped unless they actually secretly are ok with it.

The_Architect

Loire wrote: »

OP: Why do you think they added 500 yards to Augusta National in 2001?

Not true. They have incrementally increased the length of Augusta year on year but biggest single increase was just over 200 yards.

2001 was a milestone in technology because of the introduction of the Pro-V1.

Golf ball technology has had a much bigger impact on the game than golf club technology. Sure, titanium big headed drivers make it easier for the weaker player but we have all hit steel-shafted irons for the last 90 years with very little difference in performance.

Therefore in essence I agree with the point of the original post - a lot (most) of it is pure marketing. At the same time, I recognise that a stop needs to be put on technological advances (particularly the ball) for the benefit of the game.

My guesstimate is that increased length of courses = 50% ball, 25% clubs, 25% physical fitness

GreeBo

ajcurry123 wrote: »

Personally I missed the part in the opening post that suggested a discussion was being sought.

There was one question posed at the end of the post but it seems to be rethorical question or at best a question directed to one individual.

But let's have a discussion.

Almaviva,

Were you a "believer" before you went for your own custom fitting?

What would you say to someone who has come down in handicap as a result of a custom fitting?
I know you went up in HC after yours but how would you explain an improvement in HC after one?

If TaylorMade are the biggest horse****ters around and all clubs are the same, what makes the Burner 2.0 irons a "lovely set of clubs" as you've recently referred to them as being?

Its a discussion forum...

Personally I think sure, equipment improves over time, but as mentioned already, its not an annual thing.
If your stuff is 10 years old, you will benefit from an upgrade.
If its 5 years....mneah...


Fitting wise I dont believe its worth it...unless you are outside of whats considered standard I dont think its required.
Even for shaft flex etc, i think you can be pretty successful without having your clubs, shafts etc tuned to your exact swing.

ShriekingSheet

GreeBo wrote: »

Fitting wise I dont believe its worth it...unless you are outside of whats considered standard I dont think its required.
Even for shaft flex etc, i think you can be pretty successful without having your clubs, shafts etc tuned to your exact swing.

I agree with you, however, where I think they "get away with it" (if you want to put it that way), is when a cynic like you or I is spending a lot of money on the bulk of a new set. Say if its over a grand.

You're looking at it saying, well I'm spending a flipping fortune anyway, there may or may not be benefit in this, but for the sake of 5% ish more cost...? It starts to seem worth the punt.

That's what happened me with my last 2 sets, 1 and 5 years ago. Slightly more reasonable for me than most, as Im far from average size, but still.

They've created the worry that someone could spend a lot of money and get the wrong gear. It's harsh, but that's business.

newport2

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I agree with you, however, where I think they "get away with it" (if you want to put it that way), is when a cynic like you or I is spending a lot of money on the bulk of a new set. Say if its over a grand.

You're looking at it saying, well I'm spending a flipping fortune anyway, there may or may not be benefit in this, but for the sake of 5% ish more cost...? It starts to seem worth the punt.

That's what happened me with my last 2 sets, 1 and 5 years ago. Slightly more reasonable for me than most, as Im far from average size, but still.

They've created the worry that someone could spend a lot of money and get the wrong gear. It's harsh, but that's business.

True, although I found custom fitting saved me a fortune. I used to be a gear-junkie years ago, always buying new stuff. However, once I got custom I stopped buying any new clubs. Have replaced my clubs once in about 8 years now. I wouldn't swap anything in my bag for anything in the golf shop.

John Divney

The_Architect wrote: »

Not true. They have incrementally increased the length of Augusta year on year but biggest single increase was just over 200 yards.

2001 was a milestone in technology because of the introduction of the Pro-V1.

Golf ball technology has had a much bigger impact on the game than golf club technology. Sure, titanium big headed drivers make it easier for the weaker player but we have all hit steel-shafted irons for the last 90 years with very little difference in performance.

Therefore in essence I agree with the point of the original post - a lot (most) of it is pure marketing. At the same time, I recognise that a stop needs to be put on technological advances (particularly the ball) for the benefit of the game.

My guesstimate is that increased length of courses = 50% ball, 25% clubs, 25% physical fitness

I'd say 25% fitness is way stronging it.

I'd say Ball and Titanium driver 40% and 40%, and the 10% various swing and fitness development.

http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf-clubs/vintage-vs-technology/

This is a very interesting read on drivers through all eras tested with Pro V1.

1. From the hickories in the 1920s to titanium drivers of 2009, there was an average increase of total distance of 26%. For the testers, the smallest increase was 37 yards and the biggest was 73 yards.
2. Each era showed increases in distance with one exception. The early stainless steel drivers of the 1980s did not show increased distance over persimmon clubs of the 1970 and 80s.
3. The greatest improvement from one era to the next came with the titanium drivers. Roughly one-half the increase in distance (13%) took place between the late persimmon / early stainless steel drivers of the 1980s and the current titanium.

Interesting that new technology was non an improvement in the 80's.

The difference between a Prov1 and a balata is probably around 20 yards in itself, add that to the 13% increase in drivers from 80's to now. and those two are the equal reason the courses have had to be lengthened.

Loire

The_Architect wrote: »

Not true. They have incrementally increased the length of Augusta year on year but biggest single increase was just over 200 yards.

True - typo - but the question still stands....why have they increased the length of Augusta by 500 years since 2001?

newport2

I've read numerous times in magazines, etc that despite technology advances, etc, amateur golfers still score the same as they did decades ago
http://www.golfblogger.com/index.php/golf/comments/average_golf_score_remains_at_100/

For pros, definitely the ball is the biggest factor as said above. I've heard the pros can hit the old drivers pretty much as far as new ones, and that they really benefit from the extra forgiveness for their occasional off-centre hit more so than the extra distance.

newport2

Loire wrote: »

True - typo - but the question still stands....why have they increased the length of Augusta by 500 years since 2001?

To bring the place and it's rules into the modern era?

Loire

newport2 wrote: »

To bring the place and it's rules into the modern era?

3rd time lucky!

True - typo - but the question still stands....why have they increased the length of Augusta by 500 years since 2001?

The_Architect

John Divney wrote: »

I'd say 25% fitness is way stronging it.

I'd say Ball and Titanium driver 40% and 40%, and the 10% various swing and fitness development.

http://www.milesofgolf.com/blog/golf-clubs/vintage-vs-technology/

This is a very interesting read on drivers through all eras tested with Pro V1.



Interesting that new technology was non an improvement in the 80's.

The difference between a Prov1 and a balata is probably around 20 yards in itself, add that to the 13% increase in drivers from 80's to now. and those two are the equal reason the courses have had to be lengthened.

I'd disagree with the findings in that report for two reasons, one out of cynicism, the other due to bad science:

1. (cynicism) The test was carried out by someone with a vested interest in promoting technology.
2. (science) All clubs used a pro-v1 for tests. It has been proven that hickories and pro-v1s don't work together. If they had conducted the tests using 1920's balls then the results would have been different.

I believe there is much less difference in length from early steel-shafted persimmon woods to today's titanium heads. Forgiveness certainly but less so in length.

the ball is by far the biggest variable in technology advances. And the easiest to rectify.

rrpc

One positive from manufacturers producing new models every year is that you can pick up the previous (or penultimate) model for a fraction of the original price.

ShriekingSheet

Loire wrote: »

3rd time lucky!

True - typo - but the question still stands....why have they increased the length of Augusta by 500 years since 2001?

No one is arguing that equipment hasn't made players longer over extended periods of time. But the physique of players, dedication to practice etc has also greatly increased.

You have to take that into account because you're talking about a course that hosts the elite of the elite every year - not a regular club. The back tees you're referring to are probably used one other time a year outside the Masters, and that's just for the craic I'd say.

In the period you mention, the holes have been lengthened by, on average, 28 yards each. Over a 12 year period, with the leaps made in the pro game, that sounds fair enough to me.

For a more realistic view, with regard to actual, regular golf, look at The Castle or Milltown. Both are over 100 years old. Neither has, or can extend the course hugely, because they're very hemmed in by housing. They're short, old-fashioned courses.

By your logic, general golfers, with such modern technology compared to 100 years ago, should tear apart these courses. They should be irrelevant to modern golf. But have a look at the Top Golfer Junior Scratch Cup results from last year and see how many single figure golfers shot a million. Check out how old the course records are, despite both courses being home to some top amateurs at the moment and in recent years.

Technology helps over time, but other than the big titanium head and pro-v1, there are very, very few actual leaps made, they are far between, and whether the added length (or whatever) actually translates into better scores is very debatable.

John Divney

The_Architect wrote: »

I'd disagree with the findings in that report for two reasons, one out of cynicism, the other due to bad science:

1. (cynicism) The test was carried out by someone with a vested interest in promoting technology.
2. (science) All clubs used a pro-v1 for tests. It has been proven that hickories and pro-v1s don't work together. If they had conducted the tests using 1920's balls then the results would have been different.

I believe there is much less difference in length from early steel-shafted persimmon woods to today's titanium heads. Forgiveness certainly but less so in length.

the ball is by far the biggest variable in technology advances. And the easiest to rectify.

Obviously they would have for hickory, but not nearly as much for the steel shafts which they wee all apart form the hickory.

The main point is the 30's to 2010, the major improvement in clubs was Titanium. The evidence would probably back you up on being smaller difference between old hickory and old ball, and everything else between then and the 80's (Distance wise, obviously the performance of balls improved in other areas massivley), the jumps were progressive, not massive.

Balls and Titanium are technology that changed the modern game. Your point about the difference between early steelheads and Ti drivers not being as great is moot imo, as clearly the difference between the 80's steelhead and the Titanium has changed the game, there hasn't been a bigger in clubmaking.

Nobody would go back to playing an old ball just because a hickory hit it 250 yards, it's plays like a hound for the rest of the game comparatively.


Lastly, you can't argue with a launch monitor, it's the best science golf has, if they said he improved x amount with his custom club over stock driver in accuracy and distance, it would have been there in black and white. If they are just making **** up that would be a different story, or pretending he got different numbers.

Loire

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

No one is arguing that equipment hasn't made players longer over extended periods of time.

True - I took it from the OP that equipment hadn't changed rather than a lot of the equipment being the same

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

But the physique of players, dedication to practice etc has also greatly increased.

That's true too and Gary Player & Greg Norman were certainly ahead of the curve here

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

For a more realistic view, with regard to actual, regular golf, look at The Castle or Milltown. Both are over 100 years old. Neither has, or can extend the course hugely, because they're very hemmed in by housing. They're short, old-fashioned courses.

By your logic, general golfers, with such modern technology compared to 100 years ago, should tear apart these courses. They should be irrelevant to modern golf. But have a look at the Top Golfer Junior Scratch Cup results from last year and see how many single figure golfers shot a million. Check out how old the course records are, despite both courses being home to some top amateurs at the moment and in recent years.

I didn't propose any logic :) but in relation to the courses you mention (and I'm not familiar with them) I would assume that they are a shot-makers course where errant 300yard drives are a bigger problem that 170yard doozies onto the fairway. I also think that greens have quickened a lot in recent years/decades and become more difficult, so perhaps this might account for the static scores?

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Technology helps over time, but other than the big titanium head and pro-v1, there are very, very few actual leaps made, they are far between, and whether the added length (or whatever) actually translates into better scores is very debatable.

On short courses I agree (and also for short holes - nothing like the Postage Stamp or even a short par 4 to run up a score), however, for open courses like Augusta they are there for the taking as per Tiger Woods in his early days and so had to be lengthened.

The_Architect

Interestingly, Augusta only has two sets of tee: 7,450 yards and 6,300 yards.

The primary difficulty with Augusta are the greens. With the invention of the pro-V1, they suddenly became fair game for an approach out of position. That was the big difference and the reason they felt the need to lengthen (and tighten) the course so much.

Although there is no denying that people were hitting in less club. But really it was a reaction to Tiger.

ShriekingSheet

The_Architect wrote: »

Interestingly, Augusta only has two sets of tee: 7,450 yards and 6,300 yards.

Well, that's true, but a little misleading. While they might have "two tees", but they are really long! You may be on the same tee box and colour markers used for The Masters, but those markers on the day could be 40 yards up.

The back of the tees might be 7,450, but they could (and most likely do) set it up as 7,000ish in general, using the same tee boxes.

The_Architect

What I meant is that the members genrally play from 6,300 yards. No kidding themselves about "needing" a 7,000 yard course to "challenge" them.

Us amateurs get completely carried away with length of course.

I'm a low single figure player but have most enjoyment playing under 6,500. Very few courses need to be longer than 6,600 or 6,700. We've far too many in this country.

blue note

The_Architect wrote: »

What I meant is that the members genrally play from 6,300 yards. No kidding themselves about "needing" a 7,000 yard course to "challenge" them.

Us amateurs get completely carried away with length of course.

I'm a low single figure player but have most enjoyment playing under 6,500. Very few courses need to be longer than 6,600 or 6,700. We've far too many in this country.

I agree with you. I remember hearing that Alan Hansen played the course from the members tees. He's close to a scratch golfer I believe and went around about 11 over and was delighted with himself. He then tried it off the pro tees the next time he played and said he put up a ridiculous score.

I'd love to try it though.

ShriekingSheet

The_Architect wrote: »

What I meant is that the members genrally play from 6,300 yards. No kidding themselves about "needing" a 7,000 yard course to "challenge" them.

Us amateurs get completely carried away with length of course.

I'm a low single figure player but have most enjoyment playing under 6,500. Very few courses need to be longer than 6,600 or 6,700. We've far too many in this country.

Ah yeah, fair enough. In that respect, we're victims of the Celtic Tiger.

Does your family have two cars? Does your house have an extension? How many holidays do you go on? Is your golf course a "championship" course over 7,000 yards?

My club has back tees which we barely ever use, and absolutely no one (including big hitters, low men, young guys) complains because it's well designed, plenty long and a good test from the middle tees. The 7,000 yard + course from the the back tees just means 70% of the players in front of you are having a nightmare in the Medal, and it's slow.

GreeBo

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Ah yeah, fair enough. In that respect, we're victims of the Celtic Tiger.

Does your family have two cars? Does your house have an extension? How many holidays do you go on? Is your golf course a "championship" course over 7,000 yards?

My club has back tees which we barely ever use, and absolutely no one (including big hitters, low men, young guys) complains because it's well designed, plenty long and a good test from the middle tees. The 7,000 yard + course from the the back tees just means 70% of the players in front of you are having a nightmare in the Medal, and it's slow.

Our standard, 100+ year old course is 5900 yards long (Par 68, 6 par 3s)
We have a championship layout thats 6900 yards long, par 72.
Anytime we play it there are complaints from the older members that the course is too long and too hard.
Sure the big hitters can sometimes have a great score, but they also often have massive scores, due to the requirement to be a straight hitter (far more so on the old layout than the new)

The (continuing) design of the course means that even on the short holes, you cant just over power them, at least not without hitting a perfect shot. Less than perfect with a drive on the shorter par 4's for example will leave you struggling for par.

Finally, I think the average distance amateurs hit it has increased, but the long guys are not that much longer, there are just more of them.

Gin77

kal7 wrote: »

I bought a new driver recently and it added good 20-25 yards with less effort needed. My original set of clubs I bought in 1989, so at least for me the technology has moved on in 24 yrs anyway.

FYI
When you go to a demo day or fitting at a golf range, your hitting range balls. They don't go as far as normal golf balls. The software is allowing for this when its calculating, therefore the numbers they are quoting are fictional.

Draupnir

GreeBo wrote: »

Our standard, 100+ year old course is 5900 yards long (Par 68, 6 par 3s)

That sounds like my kind of golf course, where is that if you don't mind me asking?

GreeBo

Draupnir wrote: »

That sounds like my kind of golf course, where is that if you don't mind me asking?

Grange in Rathfarnham, Dublin.

Draupnir

Great thanks, will try to give it a go some day.