Golf equipment & the its effect on the pro game

blue note · 24-07-2012 01:14PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I hit an iron off the tee when the benefits of being a bit closer with the driver are out weighed by the negatives if I dont hit a perfect drive. (Blocked out, OB, in hazard, deep rough etc)
I'd rather be "guaranteed" a 3i and an 8i than hope for a driver and a wedge.
Or to put it another way, the difference in accuracy between my 8i and wedge is far less than between my driver and my 3i, the sums just dont add up.

I hit a 3 or 5 wood on 2/3 par 4s. The driver would be too long on one hole (leave me in trees) and on the other I'm prone to a slice which would leave me in a drain on the other.

I use irons on 2 of the par 5s. I still comfortably reach them in 3. On the 18th A bad drive will put me in trees or OOB and on the 2nd a bad drive could be a lost ball or, slightly less bad, a great drive will leave me a fairway wood to the green (if I'm short with it I'm in a drain, left in a bunker, right in the drain, long and I could be in trees behind the green). I don't need the temptation of getting there in 2!

Dtoffee · 24-07-2012 02:37PM

blue note wrote: »

I hit a 3 or 5 wood on 2/3 par 4s. The driver would be too long on one hole (leave me in trees) and on the other I'm prone to a slice which would leave me in a drain on the other.

I use irons on 2 of the par 5s. I still comfortably reach them in 3. On the 18th A bad drive will put me in trees or OOB and on the 2nd a bad drive could be a lost ball or, slightly less bad, a great drive will leave me a fairway wood to the green (if I'm short with it I'm in a drain, left in a bunker, right in the drain, long and I could be in trees behind the green). I don't need the temptation of getting there in 2!

They are two examples of good course management and promoting accuracy over distance ..... in both cases the course design wins out and the golfer is forced top think. I argee a balance is required, but if every course extends just because the latest version of Rocketballz comes out then it becomes boring and just a long drive contest. In golf, the challenge should always be decision making and shot making .... risk and reward, thats why the best courses are the ones that leave you feeling that you will come back and burn it up (but you rarely do).

The_Architect · 24-07-2012 03:52PM

Good topic and I believe you are completely correct. The ball should be reined in.

BoardsMember · 24-07-2012 04:10PM

stringy wrote: »

only 8 players finished under par at the weekend, so the benefit of hitting 7 irons 200 yards, wasn't really an issue or a benefit at all.

:eek::eek:

Martin567 · 24-07-2012 08:30PM

cson wrote: »

Whats wrong with under par golf? I love watching a shoot out.

Lengthening courses is not the answer and neither is limiting equipment. Faldo mentioned it that if he was designing a course he'd place the bunkers at 250/260 yards so you'd have to hit a driver to get over them. I think thats the way to go; hazards at varying distances from the tee so that pros have to think about where to hit it and don't get to do a Tiger of smashing an iron off every tee [and look how well that turned out for him].

Without reading or hearing what Faldo might have said, I know you've got less than half the story. You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be any bunkers near the fairway after 250/260 yards. A driver is the ultimate risk and reward club. Hit it well and you've got the easiest approach to the green. Hit it poorly and you're in trouble. Therefore the most trouble has to be around the distance that these guys will be hitting their driver. Otherwise everyone will just get the driver out, hit it over all the trouble and the entire event becomes a pitch & putt contest. All these bunkers at 250/260 yards would become redundant and the pros wouldn't have to think at all about what to hit.

That's why Lytham (and the other great links) are such brilliant courses. It's a game of strategy all the way around rather than just crash, bang, wallop. As Els & Scott showed, if you were hitting the driver well enough, you would reap the rewards. If you weren't confident enough in the driver, then you would have a much more difficult second shot.

The problem with a "shoot-out" as you call it is that it is far less likely that the best player will win. If everyone just gives it a lash with the driver and has no fear of getting into any trouble, the guy who's really hitting it well off the tee is being unfairly penalised. Majors are supposed to be the ultimate test in golf and the recent US & British Opens were just that. If they were to turn into "shoot-outs", they would quickly lose their identities and would eventually cease to be as important as they currently are.

With all the talk of equipment, it's amazing that it's the older courses which have stood up best to the challenge. Courses opened only 20-30 years ago have struggled to cope while those 100 years old or more remain as difficult as ever.

thewobbler · 24-07-2012 10:35PM

Martin567 wrote: »

With all the talk of equipment, it's amazing that it's the older courses which have stood up best to the challenge. Courses opened only 20-30 years ago have struggled to cope while those 100 years old or more remain as difficult as ever.

I love a sweeping generalisation.

St Andrews and Turnberry are little more than pitch and putt courses when the wind is down.

Augusta has spent the last 20 years adding 50 yards a year somewhere, anywhere.

All the great American courses likewise.

On the British links, they grow rough to a foot high to protect, and turn holes that were designed as par 5s into par 4s.

If the Grove or Celtic Manor was to be awarded the Open, you can guarantee they'd do likewise.

GreeBo · 24-07-2012 10:40PM

Links courses are designed to be played in windy conditions.no wind on links is the equivalent if having ball in hand at Augusta.it massively impacts the scores.

kermitpwee · 24-07-2012 11:15PM

blue note wrote: »

Didn't they lengthen it and change it from a par 72 to a par 70? So on the same course a few years back that would have been a -15.

They lengthened it 220 yards and it was a par 71 brought to par 70 so by your calculations that would make it -11. The course stills wins imo

MisterAnarchy · 25-07-2012 03:25PM

Creasy_bear wrote: »

Basically, driving distance on the pga tour has not improved in the last 9 years

Nonsense,every one knows that every year the new drivers released for 3-4 hundred euro hit the ball 20 yards further than the previous years models,its common knowledge,all the manufacturers are saying it .
Anyone worth his salt should be driving the ball over 400 yards.:p

I played some golf with some younger golfers last week and they were trying to convince me that the new drivers go 30 yards further than last years models .
They were convinced of it .

I have an old XR-05 driver,it was released in 2004 and it is the longest driver I have ever hit,it is longer than anything currently on the market.
It is illegal now ,the COR is slightly too high but it just goes to show that all the marketing claims are nonsense.

BoardsMember · 25-07-2012 04:45PM

So you were going great with your point

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I have an old XR-05 driver,it was released in 2004 and it is the longest driver I have ever hit,it is longer than anything currently on the market.

....until......

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

It is illegal now ,the COR is slightly too high

..and so I'm not really sure its valid to continue...

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

but it just goes to show that all the marketing claims are nonsense.

:D:D

The_Architect · 25-07-2012 05:06PM

The drivers don't hit the ball that much further in recent years - mainly marketing - but over a longer period of time they have definitely made a distance difference and they are much, much, more forgiving for the weaker golfer who doesn't hit it out of the sweet spot everytime. So they have a profound effect.

The ball has had a bigger effect. There have been about 4 step jumps in increased distance in the last 150 years, the last being the introduction of the Pro-V1. But it's not just distance. It's increased spin as well that wreaks havoc with courses, their design, their length and ultimately their cost.

Almaviva · 25-07-2012 07:03PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Links courses are designed to be played in windy conditions.no wind on links is the equivalent if having ball in hand at Augusta.it massively impacts the scores.

Now thats going a bit too far. Yes the British Isles generally have a bit of wind, and the designers of old would have had the prevailing direction in mind when laying them out, but really it is just a case of no wind easier cours, wind, more difficult course. Scores were higher in the past and it is the current level of athleticism, equipment, and high level of talent participating in majors that is making some of the old courses look a little humiliated.

The mistake was the authorities not forseeing the advances in equipment and drawing a line before they manufacturers got gear into players, but I'll concede that is easier said than done.
The moves over the last century were; the steel shaft, the balata ball then the ProV style, the timber wood to the steel wood, the small steel wood to the 460 steel would, and to lesser degrees, the carbon shaft and the peripheral weighted head which both improve the average rather than the peak.
To me, the ball does seem the way to go. A ball flying about 85% as long as the current one would be the simplest step. They are cheap consumables and automatically obsolete withing a couple of rounds unlike clubs which would be more complicated, upset manufacturers more, and make a lot of capital n the hands of the average golfer obsolete. The move would reign in the need for ever longer and more expensive real estate to play the game, and keep older courses (both the St Andrews etc, and the average members course) playing with the character that was their tradition for a hundred years or more.
This would leave all the equipment worth anything still legal (except those damned long putters, but thats another story), and the thrust of manufacturers club development and marketing untouched. Ball makers would be given a boost of everyone buying new balls, and an opportunity for them to out market the opposition competing for who has the best 'new' ball. Similar to the pretty painless transition we made from the 1.62 to 1.68 ball. Everyone wins.

GreeBo · 26-07-2012 10:26AM

Almaviva wrote: »

Now thats going a bit too far. Yes the British Isles generally have a bit of wind, and the designers of old would have had the prevailing direction in mind when laying them out, but really it is just a case of no wind easier cours, wind, more difficult course. Scores were higher in the past and it is the current level of athleticism, equipment, and high level of talent participating in majors that is making some of the old courses look a little humiliated.

The mistake was the authorities not forseeing the advances in equipment and drawing a line before they manufacturers got gear into players, but I'll concede that is easier said than done.
The moves over the last century were; the steel shaft, the balata ball then the ProV style, the timber wood to the steel wood, the small steel wood to the 460 steel would, and to lesser degrees, the carbon shaft and the peripheral weighted head which both improve the average rather than the peak.
To me, the ball does seem the way to go. A ball flying about 85% as long as the current one would be the simplest step. They are cheap consumables and automatically obsolete withing a couple of rounds unlike clubs which would be more complicated, upset manufacturers more, and make a lot of capital n the hands of the average golfer obsolete. The move would reign in the need for ever longer and more expensive real estate to play the game, and keep older courses (both the St Andrews etc, and the average members course) playing with the character that was their tradition for a hundred years or more.
This would leave all the equipment worth anything still legal (except those damned long putters, but thats another story), and the thrust of manufacturers club development and marketing untouched. Ball makers would be given a boost of everyone buying new balls, and an opportunity for them to out market the opposition competing for who has the best 'new' ball. Similar to the pretty painless transition we made from the 1.62 to 1.68 ball. Everyone wins.

I'm not talking about all old courses, purely links courses, which I think most people would agree are designed with wind in mind?

I'm with you on the ball being the best target, but they would have to come up with some "standard" way of reducing the distance.
e.g minimum weight, max dimples, size
because they cant just set a maximum distance a ball can travel (with Iron Byron type machine) as that would kill the ball industry.

The_Architect · 26-07-2012 01:17PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not talking about all old courses, purely links courses, which I think most people would agree are designed with wind in mind?

I'm with you on the ball being the best target, but they would have to come up with some "standard" way of reducing the distance.
e.g minimum weight, max dimples, size
because they cant just set a maximum distance a ball can travel (with Iron Byron type machine) as that would kill the ball industry.

That should be easy. There are a number of prototypes already out there, one called the e-ball.

blue note · 26-07-2012 01:27PM

I think it's a much more interesting discussion with amateurs and our courses. We definitely hit it consistently further now and if your course hasn't been upgraded fairly recently, might be a little out of date. The 4th in tramore used to be a great hole - two decent carries required to get to the green. But in the few years before our course overhaul loads were long enough to cut to corner and make it a drive and a pitch. There are plenty of other examples too, but it was a good course that needed upgrades to stay relevant. I blame equipment for that.

GreeBo · 26-07-2012 05:57PM

The_Architect wrote: »

That should be easy. There are a number of prototypes already out there, one called the e-ball.

I think make it lighter or bigger is a better way as I really dont like the idea of a ball that has a pre-set maximum distance.
It removes the risk/reward of "going for one" and reduces everyone to the same distance. The guys who hit it long will drop drivers and just carry 3-woods and extra wedges or something.
Just make it harder to hit it more than 300 Yrds and then the game is saved for everyone and the guys who swing really hard still get a benefit.

Almaviva · 27-07-2012 08:53AM

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not talking about all old courses, purely links courses, which I think most people would agree are designed with wind in mind?

I'm with you on the ball being the best target, but they would have to come up with some "standard" way of reducing the distance.
e.g minimum weight, max dimples, size
because they cant just set a maximum distance a ball can travel (with Iron Byron type machine) as that would kill the ball industry.

I would still not agree that courses were designed with wind in mind. 'Designed' is hardly even the world for the very old courses. They simply eveolved or at a stretch were 'laid out', without any great planning or thought (you simply 'played out', turned, and 'played back'). Designed with wind in mind almost suggests 'no wind stopped play'.

I guess science could quite easily come up with a ball that would limit the distance we all hit it by whatever percentage we want. Maximum launch velocity to a give clubhead speed with a given clubhead, or coefficient of restitution (similar to that used to limit the spring off a driver face) should not tax the law maker's science boffins too much. Modifications to ball materails would easily cope with the change, and prefereable to any changes in size in my view (although the change from 1.62 to 1.68 did pass of without trauma, I dont think I would like to see the ball size increase again). Bigger would change the characteristics of hitting a ball off the fairway and, if the change were too big, also of putting.

BigChap1759 · 27-07-2012 11:02AM

Creasy_bear wrote: »

Slowing down the ball will not make the big hitters short. It will make them shorter relative to their old drives. Bubba would still be 50 yards outside of Donald.

That is true but the reason for doing it would be to stop the need to continually lengthen golf courses, especially open courses where there is very little room left in a lot of cases.

Golf equipment & the its effect on the pro game

Comments