Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

If you could stop time...


70 replies to this topic

#31 Nard_S

Nard_S

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,589 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 335269
  • Joined: 08/21/2014
  • Location:Norwalk, CT
  • Handicap:9
GolfWRX Likes : 2023

Posted 13 November 2017 - 04:05 PM

I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.

I could not disagree more. It may bring "mano a mano" more to the front, but talent is also handling the adversity of course & elements. Equipment designed to mitigate that part diminishes what is integral to the game and sets golf a part from other sports. Jack & Tiger were not just long, they controlled the ball better than their peers. Golf historically has been man vs elements vs opponent. Tech has diminished the trifecta of challenge and many here like it and approve. I do not and never will. Cheers.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#32 1970.gpp

1970.gpp

    Minimalist

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 3570
  • Joined: 07/28/2005
  • Location:Illinois
  • Ebay ID:1970.gpp
GolfWRX Likes : 562

Posted 13 November 2017 - 06:34 PM

View PostKYMAR, on 13 November 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

New stuff is shiny.
New stuff feels better, too...
Driver PING G SF Tec/PING Alta 55 (10*)
Fairway Woods PING G SF Tec/PING Alta 65 (15*/20*)
Hybrid PING G Crossover/PING Alta 70 (25*)
Irons PING
Wedges PING Glide 2.0 (45SS/50SS/55WS/60WS)
Putter PING Sigma G Piper 3

2

#33 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 13 November 2017 - 08:45 PM

View PostNard_S, on 13 November 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.

I could not disagree more. It may bring "mano a mano" more to the front, but talent is also handling the adversity of course & elements. Equipment designed to mitigate that part diminishes what is integral to the game and sets golf a part from other sports. Jack & Tiger were not just long, they controlled the ball better than their peers.

It does exactly the opposite.  Technology makes distance available to all.  Golf is *less* "man a mano" because of tech, not more.  The technology gives bigger gains to those who swing slower.  Technology can help a ton with playing golf swing.  It can't help at all with playing golf.  It levels the playing field for slower swingers.
king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

3

#34 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 13 November 2017 - 08:51 PM

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

"I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.  Somebody is always going to drive it further - Jack was longer than the field, relatively speaking, than anyone is now.  Modern technology helps people play golf swing better.  True talent is playing golf. Golf is a mental game, not a physical one, and the new technology allows those with less-than-optimal swings to compete."

... How old are you? (I wish everyone put that in their profile) Golf is a mental AND physical game. Show me the strongest willed but completely non athletic guy in the world and I doubt he would play well in 1971. I ask how old you are because if you played with balata balls, persimmon drivers and small MB's you would know how much harder it was to control the ball. Virtually nobody played a straight ball flight because it didn't exist. Blade a TP5x and it gets in the air and runs a good ways, but blade a HT-100 and if it didn't cut completely showing rubber bands, the cover was cut and not only didn't go very far but curved tremendously. And it's not like there was no mental aspect to the game back then, it was as much or arguably more important because the ball had so much movement with a poor swing. Skill was at a premium and those that could control their ball flight AND hit it far had a huge advantage.

... I do not compare players then to players now because either group would change their game to match the equipment if they have real talent. But golf was not played by the masses back then because it was just so dammed difficult, as opposed to today when anyone can pick up a 460cc forgiving driver and have at least some success as well as hitting SGI irons compared to some Wilson FG-17's that gave you no help getting the ball in the air.


35, but I played tennis my whole life until I gave it up due to injury.  About five years into golf.

Everything  you are saying here makes sense, if the goal of the game was to make the best swing possible.

If the winner in golf was the guy who made the best golf swing, stripping away the technology would absolutely make the cream rise.  There is no doubt about that.  None.  We just disagree what "true talent" is when it comes to golf.  You think its how someone swings a club and hits a ball.  I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions.  The technology does, indeed, hurt "talent from rising" under your definition - the best pure swing won't win nearly as often. Under mine (a mental, course management and guts game), it helps "true talent" beat the guy with the flawless swing.

In tennis, there are tons of guys who had better strokes than Jimmy Connors.  Were they "more talented" ?  Maybe.  They won a lot less.  As the racquets got better, players like Federer and Nadal (ever seen Nadal hit a first serve?) started to dominate through mental toughness and being better at the actual game, not just the tennis strokes.

Technology hurts talent if talent is defined in terms of the swing (technology evens the playing field for those without perfect swings).  Technology helps talent if talent is defined in terms of the intangibles of the game (technology allows a slower swinger to compete where they would otherwise be completely unable to).
king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

4

#35 chisag

chisag

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,638 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 1163
  • Joined: 05/27/2005
  • Location:Chicago Suburbs
  • Handicap:+0.9
GolfWRX Likes : 1188

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Cobra F8 ... Even Flow Blue 65s
Cobra F8 15* ... Even Flow Blue 75s
Cobra F6 Baffler stock shaft
Exotics CBX Iron Wood 17* ... HZRDUS Black 85hy
4-pw TaylorMade P790 Recoil Prototype 95's
SM6 52* F Grind /SM7 D Grind 58* ... Recoil 110s
Scotty Cameron Newport 2.5 Select  33"

5

#36 DFS PFD

DFS PFD

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 485676
  • Joined: 10/30/2017
  • Handicap:1.8
GolfWRX Likes : 449

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:23 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

"I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.  Somebody is always going to drive it further - Jack was longer than the field, relatively speaking, than anyone is now.  Modern technology helps people play golf swing better.  True talent is playing golf. Golf is a mental game, not a physical one, and the new technology allows those with less-than-optimal swings to compete."

... How old are you? (I wish everyone put that in their profile) Golf is a mental AND physical game. Show me the strongest willed but completely non athletic guy in the world and I doubt he would play well in 1971. I ask how old you are because if you played with balata balls, persimmon drivers and small MB's you would know how much harder it was to control the ball. Virtually nobody played a straight ball flight because it didn't exist. Blade a TP5x and it gets in the air and runs a good ways, but blade a HT-100 and if it didn't cut completely showing rubber bands, the cover was cut and not only didn't go very far but curved tremendously. And it's not like there was no mental aspect to the game back then, it was as much or arguably more important because the ball had so much movement with a poor swing. Skill was at a premium and those that could control their ball flight AND hit it far had a huge advantage.

... I do not compare players then to players now because either group would change their game to match the equipment if they have real talent. But golf was not played by the masses back then because it was just so dammed difficult, as opposed to today when anyone can pick up a 460cc forgiving driver and have at least some success as well as hitting SGI irons compared to some Wilson FG-17's that gave you no help getting the ball in the air.


35, but I played tennis my whole life until I gave it up due to injury.  About five years into golf.

Everything  you are saying here makes sense, if the goal of the game was to make the best swing possible.

If the winner in golf was the guy who made the best golf swing, stripping away the technology would absolutely make the cream rise.  There is no doubt about that.  None.  We just disagree what "true talent" is when it comes to golf.  You think its how someone swings a club and hits a ball.  I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions.  The technology does, indeed, hurt "talent from rising" under your definition - the best pure swing won't win nearly as often. Under mine (a mental, course management and guts game), it helps "true talent" beat the guy with the flawless swing.

In tennis, there are tons of guys who had better strokes than Jimmy Connors.  Were they "more talented" ?  Maybe.  They won a lot less.  As the racquets got better, players like Federer and Nadal (ever seen Nadal hit a first serve?) started to dominate through mental toughness and being better at the actual game, not just the tennis strokes.

Technology hurts talent if talent is defined in terms of the swing (technology evens the playing field for those without perfect swings).  Technology helps talent if talent is defined in terms of the intangibles of the game (technology allows a slower swinger to compete where they would otherwise be completely unable to).

Just looking for input here, questioning your opinion, where was the equipment evening the field during the Tiger Woods era?
F8+ Kuro Kage DC 70 TX
M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
4-PW Nike VR Pro Blades X7's
50* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
55* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
009

6

#37 BearQ

BearQ

    Break 2 Rebuild

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,633 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 238387
  • Joined: 03/16/2013
GolfWRX Likes : 1639

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:28 PM

View PostSubaruWRX, on 13 November 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

Iíd stop the clock when I was 23. Super healthy and stronger than I am now. I could play with any equipment, and itís not like everyone else could play anything better than what I could get my hands on. So with equipment not giving anyone an advantage, Iíll take my younger self and hit the course!

Ahah Iím totally with you. Gimme my health and pre injury swing back and Iím okay playing nearly anything. Health and energy is everything
Cobra LTD Pro  --  Tour AD TP 7TX
XR 3Deep  --  Tour AD TP 8X
Titleist 915FD 5W  -- Tour AD TP 8X
Bridgestone J15DF (3i)  Srixon Z945 (4-P)  --  Nippon SPB X
Nike VR Forged   (52-56)  --  Nippon SPB X
TM Spider Black

7

#38 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    #TwistFaceExperience

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,688 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:Philly Philly!
GolfWRX Likes : 2420

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:32 PM

I don't understand this version of the neo-Luddite approach to golf.  If you want to play with old equipment do that.  If not, play the new stuff.  The new equipment is not the only reason these kids are out driving previous generations by 35 yards.  It's sheer athleticism, biomechanics, genetics and TALENT.  

The reason it is becoming more prevalent is because golf income on tour is eclipsing other high contact sports.  Follow the money.

Edited by Gamble Gamble, 13 November 2017 - 10:49 PM.

Taylormade M3 10* Tour AD-DI 7X
Taylormade M3 15* Tour AD-IZ 7X
Taylormade M4 19* Tour AD-DI 8X
Taylormade P790 4i Tour AD-DI 9X
Taylormade P790 5i-AW Modus 120
Titleist SM7 54S 60D DG S400 TI
Ping Cadence Ketsch Heavy Putter
Taylormade TP5/TP5X Number 26




M3 Taylormade Experience

8

#39 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.
king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

9

#40 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:49 PM

View PostDFS PFD, on 13 November 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 08:51 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

"I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.  Somebody is always going to drive it further - Jack was longer than the field, relatively speaking, than anyone is now.  Modern technology helps people play golf swing better.  True talent is playing golf. Golf is a mental game, not a physical one, and the new technology allows those with less-than-optimal swings to compete."

... How old are you? (I wish everyone put that in their profile) Golf is a mental AND physical game. Show me the strongest willed but completely non athletic guy in the world and I doubt he would play well in 1971. I ask how old you are because if you played with balata balls, persimmon drivers and small MB's you would know how much harder it was to control the ball. Virtually nobody played a straight ball flight because it didn't exist. Blade a TP5x and it gets in the air and runs a good ways, but blade a HT-100 and if it didn't cut completely showing rubber bands, the cover was cut and not only didn't go very far but curved tremendously. And it's not like there was no mental aspect to the game back then, it was as much or arguably more important because the ball had so much movement with a poor swing. Skill was at a premium and those that could control their ball flight AND hit it far had a huge advantage.

... I do not compare players then to players now because either group would change their game to match the equipment if they have real talent. But golf was not played by the masses back then because it was just so dammed difficult, as opposed to today when anyone can pick up a 460cc forgiving driver and have at least some success as well as hitting SGI irons compared to some Wilson FG-17's that gave you no help getting the ball in the air.


35, but I played tennis my whole life until I gave it up due to injury.  About five years into golf.

Everything  you are saying here makes sense, if the goal of the game was to make the best swing possible.

If the winner in golf was the guy who made the best golf swing, stripping away the technology would absolutely make the cream rise.  There is no doubt about that.  None.  We just disagree what "true talent" is when it comes to golf.  You think its how someone swings a club and hits a ball.  I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions.  The technology does, indeed, hurt "talent from rising" under your definition - the best pure swing won't win nearly as often. Under mine (a mental, course management and guts game), it helps "true talent" beat the guy with the flawless swing.

In tennis, there are tons of guys who had better strokes than Jimmy Connors.  Were they "more talented" ?  Maybe.  They won a lot less.  As the racquets got better, players like Federer and Nadal (ever seen Nadal hit a first serve?) started to dominate through mental toughness and being better at the actual game, not just the tennis strokes.

Technology hurts talent if talent is defined in terms of the swing (technology evens the playing field for those without perfect swings).  Technology helps talent if talent is defined in terms of the intangibles of the game (technology allows a slower swinger to compete where they would otherwise be completely unable to).
6-
Just looking for input here, questioning your opinion, where was the equipment evening the field during the Tiger Woods era?

It didn't, that was my point.  Tiger won because he was the best iron player of all time by a factor of 2-3x.  Tiger dominated under Butch (late 90s, early 2000s) and Haney (post-2006).  Those were two very different tech eras, but, the technology was irrelevant.  This whole business about "technology not letting true talent shine through" is silly.  Now because of technology we can get Langer in 2nd on a Sunday at Augusta, then Couples the next year, etc... In 1986 it was an insane event Nicklaus was even there.  Tech keeps the best players around longer.  Its ridiculous to conclude technology interferes with talent shining through.  It does exactly the opposite.

king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#41 halliedog

halliedog

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 30624
  • Joined: 06/03/2007
  • Location:Akron OH
  • Handicap:5.2
GolfWRX Likes : 636

Posted 13 November 2017 - 10:50 PM

View PostItsjustagame, on 13 November 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

If I could stop time I would put it to better use than my golf equipment.

I can't "stop" time, but if I could "turn back time" I'd give it all to you.  PM me if interested, and no low balls please!
WITB:
TM M1 8.5* w/ Aldila Rip Alpha 45.5"  
Ping TiSi Tec 7.5* w/ Elements Chrome 43"
Callaway 13.5* Pro Deep w/ Project X V6.0
TM UDI 1, 3 w/ KBS C-Taper Lite S
TM RSi-TP 4-9 w/ KBS Tour V X
TM Rac PW - 48* w/ KBS C-Taper X
Nevada Golf Guy 53-08 w/ KBS Tour V X
TM Spider Blade 32 - 35"

11

#42 Bonesaw

Bonesaw

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 189414
  • Joined: 06/28/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 147

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:16 PM

The ball is 90% of the equation.  Jack would have hit a 4 or 5 at pebble in 72 if he had a pro v1.  Not a 1.  

It's made the game more fun.

12

#43 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,965 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 17568

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:17 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

View PostNard_S, on 13 November 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.

I could not disagree more. It may bring "mano a mano" more to the front, but talent is also handling the adversity of course & elements. Equipment designed to mitigate that part diminishes what is integral to the game and sets golf a part from other sports. Jack & Tiger were not just long, they controlled the ball better than their peers.

It does exactly the opposite.  Technology makes distance available to all.  Golf is *less* "man a mano" because of tech, not more.  The technology gives bigger gains to those who swing slower.  Technology can help a ton with playing golf swing.  It can't help at all with playing golf.  It levels the playing field for slower swingers.

which is exactly why older tech is a better test.. you get to see who the better player is ..not who gets the luckier bounces or can hit the straightest ball....same as wind/rain play...  tough conditions show us whos who....  sunshine, no wind and modern striaghtball clubs bring alot more luck into it





edit-  id stop time in 1998 if it were me......  non of this Y2K nonsense..... if be swinging a 975D with a 7.0 rifle  in steel  to go with my Titleist Custom Grinds and a pair of Rusty 588s...

Edited by bladehunter, 13 November 2017 - 11:25 PM.

Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
  **Testing **  Tour Issue TM GAPR 2 iron w/ Graphite Design ADDI 105X
Miura LE 1957 Small blade   3-pw  Modus 130X
Vokey Tour issue raw 54  60 M  Modus 130S
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

13

#44 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,965 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 17568

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:19 PM

View PostGamble Gamble, on 13 November 2017 - 10:32 PM, said:

I don't understand this version of the neo-Luddite approach to golf.  If you want to play with old equipment do that.  If not, play the new stuff.  The new equipment is not the only reason these kids are out driving previous generations by 35 yards.  It's sheer athleticism, biomechanics, genetics and TALENT.  

The reason it is becoming more prevalent is because golf income on tour is eclipsing other high contact sports.  Follow the money.


your side of the table claims distance hasnt gone up....  which is it ?
Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
  **Testing **  Tour Issue TM GAPR 2 iron w/ Graphite Design ADDI 105X
Miura LE 1957 Small blade   3-pw  Modus 130X
Vokey Tour issue raw 54  60 M  Modus 130S
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

14

#45 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,965 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 17568

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:30 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.


dont think you can claim that is true till someone dethrowns Jack and Tiger..... Ball control and the ability to move both ways is still the best way.... what your saying gets us what we have now... 10 guys swapping wins.... with more to come.... the old way produces alpha dogs... when the talent level is high enough...  Ill concede that the single minded game is best when someone wins 80 times with it and/or 20 majors or so..... right now best you have us Jordan Spieth... which has alot to do to get there... and im a spieth fan...

Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
  **Testing **  Tour Issue TM GAPR 2 iron w/ Graphite Design ADDI 105X
Miura LE 1957 Small blade   3-pw  Modus 130X
Vokey Tour issue raw 54  60 M  Modus 130S
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

15

#46 deadsolid...shank

deadsolid...shank

    Legend

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 11,388 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 99408
  • Joined: 11/30/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 7561

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:22 AM

View PostLazyLightning22, on 13 November 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

View Postgolfandfishing, on 13 November 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Pre adjustable driver, mainly because I don't own one and don't understand them and won't go to the range to hit balls to figure out what setting would work for me. Also because people who hit slices or snap hooks still hit them no matter what they have done with their fancy screwdriver.

I agree with this. I would stop right before the introduction of all the adjustable drivers. I don't think the adjustments make a world of difference. I feel like it's a way for companies to jack up the prices.

I like the adjustable drivers because it's easy to swap out and try different shafts.

In answer to the OP's question. Just before the ProV came out.
Titleist 910 8.5
Titleist 910 15*
Titleist 910H 17*
2-6 Mizuno MP-60, 7-PW MP-67
SC GoLo
Vokey SM5 52,58,62

16

#47 Hubijerk

Hubijerk

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 305901
  • Joined: 04/05/2014
  • Handicap:0
  • Ebay ID:hubijerk2p7b
GolfWRX Likes : 303

Posted 14 November 2017 - 02:03 AM

This has turned into what I hoped it would, im workin at the moment but will read through in the am... but i agree that guys today grew up with different equipment thus honed different skills, or techniques as a result.  The swing is different today and the shots needed are different.  Would jack, asnd arnie, and hogan have developed the skills for the new stuff in this era, im sure.  But i do think its harder to dominate.  Something that i think gets overlooked sometimes too is how much better the greens are, that certainly plays a roll in scoring.
You can't sneak the cheese by a rat

17

#48 Gstew1930

Gstew1930

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 477542
  • Joined: 08/04/2017
  • Location:Houston
  • Handicap:5
GolfWRX Likes : 76

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:45 AM

View Postcgasucks, on 13 November 2017 - 08:42 AM, said:

Me personally 2003.  The 983K was one of the hottest drivers at that time and TM just started to release its TP line.  In those days, the TP meant not only an upgraded shaft, but TM claimed that the heads were made slightly differently as well.  So those heads sold at that time were made exactly the same as the ones in the tour van (I think).  The r510 TP was one of the first with that designation and still revered as a great club.  

Also, it was a great year for me personally and professionally as well :taunt:.

I agree, I loved my 983k. I also loved the strata tour ace. Anyone else play that ball?
Nike Vapor Flex 440 - Fujikura Atmos Black 6x
Taylormade P790 UDI 2 iron
Nike Vapor Pro 3-PW - PX 6.5
Vokey SM7 52 &56 Px 6.5
Taylormade Hi Toe 60*
Bettinardi Mizuno C03H
TP5

18

#49 scruffynick

scruffynick

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 317681
  • Joined: 05/28/2014
  • Location:manchester, UK
  • Handicap:5
GolfWRX Likes : 699

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:32 AM

Wouldn't on the irons but the drivers are now way too big.....I'd say after the biggest big bertha in early naughties something should have been done.

19

#50 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:04 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 13 November 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

View PostNard_S, on 13 November 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.

I could not disagree more. It may bring "mano a mano" more to the front, but talent is also handling the adversity of course & elements. Equipment designed to mitigate that part diminishes what is integral to the game and sets golf a part from other sports. Jack & Tiger were not just long, they controlled the ball better than their peers.

It does exactly the opposite.  Technology makes distance available to all.  Golf is *less* "man a mano" because of tech, not more.  The technology gives bigger gains to those who swing slower.  Technology can help a ton with playing golf swing.  It can't help at all with playing golf.  It levels the playing field for slower swingers.

which is exactly why older tech is a better test.. you get to see who the better player is ..not who gets the luckier bounces or can hit the straightest ball....same as wind/rain play...  tough conditions show us whos who....  sunshine, no wind and modern striaghtball clubs bring alot more luck into it





edit-  id stop time in 1998 if it were me......  non of this Y2K nonsense..... if be swinging a 975D with a 7.0 rifle  in steel  to go with my Titleist Custom Grinds and a pair of Rusty 588s...

Wait, what do sunshine and no wind have anything to do with advancements in technology?!

We just have different definitions. When you say you want the "best to shine through" what you mean is that you want "the guy who can hit the ball the best (shotmaker, whatever)" to shrine through.

Technology equalizes golf swings. It does not equalize golf decisions. Just depends which you think is "golf talent". Tournament Golf is about 90% brain and 10% swing, so I don't care much about the technology distorting results.

king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#51 Nard_S

Nard_S

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,589 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 335269
  • Joined: 08/21/2014
  • Location:Norwalk, CT
  • Handicap:9
GolfWRX Likes : 2023

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:11 AM

So the equipment has changed the dynamics of the game, fine. Problem is the courses really have not changed with them. You can extend tee boxes and narrow fairways all you want, it just a patch fix though.

Bobby Jones & Allister M. designed Augusta in the hickory era, the Links courses for The Open go even further back. Best majors of the last several years were not on those courses. So 50% of the major circuit that golf history is based upon is fast becoming irrelevant. Nice.

21

#52 pierso2

pierso2

    Shooters Shoot

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 222023
  • Joined: 01/15/2013
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 1002

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:16 AM

The title made me think of Cher's song If I Could Turn Back Time. Not sure why...but man it's gonna be a looooonnnnggggg week!

I'd almost agree with the OP. I'm gonna say 2008-2010. Back in 08, I was a senior in HS. Bag was set with Titleist 905R with V2 X 70g. 3 wood was an older Taylormade 200 series stock shaft. Hybrid was a Taylormade Rescue Dual TP with S300 shaft. Irons were Mizuno MP-30's with X100's and wedges were Titleist Spin Milled. Putter was a Ben Hogan Bettinardi Baby Ben. Ball was Bridgestone B330s. I still have the driver and irons. Might see if I can play a few rounds with them to see how they compare!
Option 1
Taylormade M4 9.5 Tensei CK Blue 70x
Callaway Big Bertha 816 Alpha 16 AD-DI 8x black
Nike VR Pro 3 hybrid project x 6.0
Adams XTD Forged 4-PW Fujikura MCI 120S
Adams MB2 GW
Callaway Mac Daddy Forged 60
Toulon Garage Atlanta Black Pearl
Ping 4 Series Tour Edition White/ Bridgestone 2014 Tour Bag

Option 2
Taylormade 2016 M1 10.5 Whiteboard Flowerband 7x
16 Taylormade M1 5 wood AD-TP 7s
Ping Anser 20 stock stiff
Taylormade 2016 M2 Tour XP105 stiff
Cleveland RTX 2.0 52 deg raw
Titleist Vokey Prototype 58 T Grind
Carbon Ringo Raw Whisky

http://www.gamegolf.com/player/pierso2

22

#53 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,965 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 17568

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:21 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 November 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 13 November 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

View PostNard_S, on 13 November 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

I would argue the reverse is true.  The modern technology showcases "true talent" much better than the old.

I could not disagree more. It may bring "mano a mano" more to the front, but talent is also handling the adversity of course & elements. Equipment designed to mitigate that part diminishes what is integral to the game and sets golf a part from other sports. Jack & Tiger were not just long, they controlled the ball better than their peers.

It does exactly the opposite.  Technology makes distance available to all.  Golf is *less* "man a mano" because of tech, not more.  The technology gives bigger gains to those who swing slower.  Technology can help a ton with playing golf swing.  It can't help at all with playing golf.  It levels the playing field for slower swingers.

which is exactly why older tech is a better test.. you get to see who the better player is ..not who gets the luckier bounces or can hit the straightest ball....same as wind/rain play...  tough conditions show us whos who....  sunshine, no wind and modern striaghtball clubs bring alot more luck into it





edit-  id stop time in 1998 if it were me......  non of this Y2K nonsense..... if be swinging a 975D with a 7.0 rifle  in steel  to go with my Titleist Custom Grinds and a pair of Rusty 588s...

Wait, what do sunshine and no wind have anything to do with advancements in technology?!

We just have different definitions. When you say you want the "best to shine through" what you mean is that you want "the guy who can hit the ball the best (shotmaker, whatever)" to shrine through.

Technology equalizes golf swings. It does not equalize golf decisions. Just depends which you think is "golf talent". Tournament Golf is about 90% brain and 10% swing, so I don't care much about the technology distorting results.



sure .... But why is it OK that tech lets the short guy etc as you said catch up?   I agree with you that it is the case too...   would be like short guys getting a boost to shoot or dunk in the NBA....
Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
  **Testing **  Tour Issue TM GAPR 2 iron w/ Graphite Design ADDI 105X
Miura LE 1957 Small blade   3-pw  Modus 130X
Vokey Tour issue raw 54  60 M  Modus 130S
TM Red TI Slant neck Spider ..34"  full sight line

23

#54 chisag

chisag

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,638 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 1163
  • Joined: 05/27/2005
  • Location:Chicago Suburbs
  • Handicap:+0.9
GolfWRX Likes : 1188

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:42 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.

... You can think whatever you want about technology and how it effects talent and I certainly have no intentions of attempting to change your mind about something I personally experienced, but you are completely missing the point about the balata era. They worked the ball because the ball was always moving not because it was a superior way to play, because it was not like todays ball that wants to go straight. Nicklaus said pick a shot and use the whole fairway working a fade from the left side or a draw from the right because the ball most definitely was gonna draw or fade. Starting it down the middle and not knowing which way the shot was gonna curve cut the fairway in half. Having played then I can assure a straight shot was extremely rare, even from the best players in the world. And because the ball moved so much it was harder to control. Especially if you were going at it with a fast swing, as the faster the swing the more the ball moved. Now add to that persimmon drivers had a ton of gear effect because the sweetspot was the size of the head of an eraser. Mishits were just much more penal.
Cobra F8 ... Even Flow Blue 65s
Cobra F8 15* ... Even Flow Blue 75s
Cobra F6 Baffler stock shaft
Exotics CBX Iron Wood 17* ... HZRDUS Black 85hy
4-pw TaylorMade P790 Recoil Prototype 95's
SM6 52* F Grind /SM7 D Grind 58* ... Recoil 110s
Scotty Cameron Newport 2.5 Select  33"

24

#55 pinestreetgolf

pinestreetgolf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 3,058 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 435010
  • Joined: 08/02/2016
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Handicap:1.2
  • Ebay ID:butlerj_dickinson
GolfWRX Likes : 1863

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:01 AM

View Postchisag, on 14 November 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.

... You can think whatever you want about technology and how it effects talent and I certainly have no intentions of attempting to change your mind about something I personally experienced, but you are completely missing the point about the balata era. They worked the ball because the ball was always moving not because it was a superior way to play, because it was not like todays ball that wants to go straight. Nicklaus said pick a shot and use the whole fairway working a fade from the left side or a draw from the right because the ball most definitely was gonna draw or fade. Starting it down the middle and not knowing which way the shot was gonna curve cut the fairway in half. Having played then I can assure a straight shot was extremely rare, even from the best players in the world. And because the ball moved so much it was harder to control. Especially if you were going at it with a fast swing, as the faster the swing the more the ball moved. Now add to that persimmon drivers had a ton of gear effect because the sweetspot was the size of the head of an eraser. Mishits were just much more penal.

I get it dude. I don't understand why playing with a whiffle ball "allows the talent of the best baseball players to shine through". A ball with an unpredictable flight makes talent less important to winning because it introduces variance. You are making my argument. If the ball flies every which way the result is way more luck based than a ball that doesn't.

Would you argue that Pete Rose (or whoever). isn't the best hitter because he doesn't hit a whiffle ball? I mean, when Pete hit it it went where he hit it. It didn't unpredictably curve in the air? What a dope. Nobody would argue that making the ball less predictable would help spot "true talent". Otherwise you'd have whiffle balls at baseball tryouts.

I'll accept you liked it better, but to say a balata ball takes "more talent" because you "don't know which way it will curve" is silly.

It's not like just jack was using it. They all had to deal with it.  It just made it more random. A balata ball makes it harder to play golf for sure, but when ALL players are using it the "difficultly factor" is cancelled out - they all have to hit it. Since they all had to hit it and it wasn't predictable, the increased variance obscured talent. You don't bring talent to the top by introducing a whiffle ball that flies wherever and saying "deal with this" UNLESS only one player has to use it. If everyone has to use it it just obscures reality (like having a home
Run derby with a whiffle ball - doesn't tell you nearly as much as a straight ball).

If we set out to find the most talented hitter in baseball, would we use old maple bats that were super thin and a whiffle ball? In tennis, would we use the old 1960s wooden racquets and the semi-hard grass balls that randomly don't go up? Of course not. We wouldn't do it in golf either.

Edited by pinestreetgolf, 14 November 2017 - 11:04 AM.

king cobra f8 9* project x 6.5
xhot2 pro deep 14.5* kuro kage 70 stiff
dhy pro 21* tour red 85x
dhy pro 24* tour blue 85x
j40 dpc 5-pw s300
vokey 50 54 58 s300
ping pal2

25

#56 OsnolaKinnard

OsnolaKinnard

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 442454
  • Joined: 10/04/2016
  • Location:Texas
  • Handicap:10
  • Ebay ID:osnolakinnardb
GolfWRX Likes : 278

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:04 AM

I don't want to stop time, but I would love to have the original Maxfli Revolution 90 back as well as real deal Royal Precision Rifle and Rifle spinner wedge shafts.


Edited by OsnolaKinnard, 14 November 2017 - 11:05 AM.

LAWS of golf + Whippy Tempomaster = CRUSHING IT

26

#57 chisag

chisag

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,638 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 1163
  • Joined: 05/27/2005
  • Location:Chicago Suburbs
  • Handicap:+0.9
GolfWRX Likes : 1188

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:18 AM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 November 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

View Postchisag, on 14 November 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.

... You can think whatever you want about technology and how it effects talent and I certainly have no intentions of attempting to change your mind about something I personally experienced, but you are completely missing the point about the balata era. They worked the ball because the ball was always moving not because it was a superior way to play, because it was not like todays ball that wants to go straight. Nicklaus said pick a shot and use the whole fairway working a fade from the left side or a draw from the right because the ball most definitely was gonna draw or fade. Starting it down the middle and not knowing which way the shot was gonna curve cut the fairway in half. Having played then I can assure a straight shot was extremely rare, even from the best players in the world. And because the ball moved so much it was harder to control. Especially if you were going at it with a fast swing, as the faster the swing the more the ball moved. Now add to that persimmon drivers had a ton of gear effect because the sweetspot was the size of the head of an eraser. Mishits were just much more penal.

I get it dude. I don't understand why playing with a whiffle ball "allows the talent of the best baseball players to shine through". A ball with an unpredictable flight makes talent less important to winning because it introduces variance. You are making my argument. If the ball flies every which way the result is way more luck based than a ball that doesn't.

Would you argue that Pete Rose (or whoever). isn't the best hitter because he doesn't hit a whiffle ball? I mean, when Pete hit it it went where he hit it. It didn't unpredictably curve in the air? What a dope. Nobody would argue that making the ball less predictable would help spot "true talent". Otherwise you'd have whiffle balls at baseball tryouts.

I'll accept you liked it better, but to say a balata ball takes "more talent" because you "don't know which way it will curve" is silly.

It's not like just jack was using it. They all had to deal with it.  It just made it more random. A balata ball makes it harder to play golf for sure, but when ALL players are using it the "difficultly factor" is cancelled out - they all have to hit it. Since they all had to hit it and it wasn't predictable, the increased variance obscured talent. You don't bring talent to the top by introducing a whiffle ball that flies wherever and saying "deal with this" UNLESS only one player has to use it. If everyone has to use it it just obscures reality (like having a home
Run derby with a whiffle ball - doesn't tell you nearly as much as a straight ball).

If we set out to find the most talented hitter in baseball, would we use old maple bats that were super thin and a whiffle ball? In tennis, would we use the old 1960s wooden racquets and the semi-hard grass balls that randomly don't go up? Of course not. We wouldn't do it in golf either.

... Read many of your posts on WRX and again the last thing I am trying to do is convince you of anything. You will spin your answer to suit your purpose and that is an exercise in futility. Wiffle ball? Sneakers? Really? Should I counter with white belts make millennial's bad golfers which is equally as ridiculous and off topic... smh. The point was the ball curved and it took skill to control it, not that skilled golfers did not know which way it would curve, quite the contrary as they curved it on purpose. Average golfers did not know which way it would curve because most just tried to hit it straight with very little success. I competed with a balata ball, taught with a balata ball and attended PGA Tour events with a balata ball and although you were not around then but are as always an expert of that era. Kinda like me saying Bobby Jones was over rated with his hickory shafts and easy courses. Fwiw, the discussion over which era took more skill is a valid discussion and has gone on in all sports with no absolute answer, other than yours of course, and I am not interested in arguing with you for the sake of arguing.

Edited by chisag, 14 November 2017 - 11:20 AM.

Cobra F8 ... Even Flow Blue 65s
Cobra F8 15* ... Even Flow Blue 75s
Cobra F6 Baffler stock shaft
Exotics CBX Iron Wood 17* ... HZRDUS Black 85hy
4-pw TaylorMade P790 Recoil Prototype 95's
SM6 52* F Grind /SM7 D Grind 58* ... Recoil 110s
Scotty Cameron Newport 2.5 Select  33"

27

#58 JoeJoeJoeUrBoat

JoeJoeJoeUrBoat

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 484568
  • Joined: 10/17/2017
  • Location:Leamington Ontario
  • Handicap:3.8
  • Ebay ID:josephmoavro
GolfWRX Likes : 303

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:33 AM

Haven't been around the game enough consistently. This is only my 4th season with an actual membership, going into my 5th. Wish I started when I was 5 and not 20.

I do play with a few older gents and they love modern tech. Seeing the look in their eyes when they smash a 250 yard drive with their new M2 is something else. I wouldn't go back a day.
PING G 400 MAX 9* Tour 65
PING G 14.5* Tour 80
PING G 17.5* Tour 80
P790 DARKNESS 4-PW KBS C-Taper $
SM7 (54.10.S, 60.08.M) PX 6.0 Rifle
Rory McIlroy 009 Newport
"Golf Babes" Tyson Lamb Marker

28

#59 rsballer10

rsballer10

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 102321
  • Joined: 01/21/2010
  • Location:Maryland
  • Ebay ID:rsballer10
GolfWRX Likes : 120

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:46 PM

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 November 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

View Postchisag, on 14 November 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.

... You can think whatever you want about technology and how it effects talent and I certainly have no intentions of attempting to change your mind about something I personally experienced, but you are completely missing the point about the balata era. They worked the ball because the ball was always moving not because it was a superior way to play, because it was not like todays ball that wants to go straight. Nicklaus said pick a shot and use the whole fairway working a fade from the left side or a draw from the right because the ball most definitely was gonna draw or fade. Starting it down the middle and not knowing which way the shot was gonna curve cut the fairway in half. Having played then I can assure a straight shot was extremely rare, even from the best players in the world. And because the ball moved so much it was harder to control. Especially if you were going at it with a fast swing, as the faster the swing the more the ball moved. Now add to that persimmon drivers had a ton of gear effect because the sweetspot was the size of the head of an eraser. Mishits were just much more penal.

I get it dude. I don't understand why playing with a whiffle ball "allows the talent of the best baseball players to shine through". A ball with an unpredictable flight makes talent less important to winning because it introduces variance. You are making my argument. If the ball flies every which way the result is way more luck based than a ball that doesn't.

Would you argue that Pete Rose (or whoever). isn't the best hitter because he doesn't hit a whiffle ball? I mean, when Pete hit it it went where he hit it. It didn't unpredictably curve in the air? What a dope. Nobody would argue that making the ball less predictable would help spot "true talent". Otherwise you'd have whiffle balls at baseball tryouts.

I'll accept you liked it better, but to say a balata ball takes "more talent" because you "don't know which way it will curve" is silly.

It's not like just jack was using it. They all had to deal with it.  It just made it more random. A balata ball makes it harder to play golf for sure, but when ALL players are using it the "difficultly factor" is cancelled out - they all have to hit it. Since they all had to hit it and it wasn't predictable, the increased variance obscured talent. You don't bring talent to the top by introducing a whiffle ball that flies wherever and saying "deal with this" UNLESS only one player has to use it. If everyone has to use it it just obscures reality (like having a home
Run derby with a whiffle ball - doesn't tell you nearly as much as a straight ball).

If we set out to find the most talented hitter in baseball, would we use old maple bats that were super thin and a whiffle ball? In tennis, would we use the old 1960s wooden racquets and the semi-hard grass balls that randomly don't go up? Of course not. We wouldn't do it in golf either.
The flight with balata is not random. The ball spun and curved more. It's not really the equivalent of a wiffle ball.

I would like to see the ball completely rolled back, not necessarily to balata.

Everyone does have to play the same ball, no matter what. But it does boil down to what do we want the game to be about. Precision, shot making, control. That's what I want. Right now it's geared for distance, and putting.

I'd like to see the game be one where both a bomber and a shotmaker can both survive on the PGA tour.

29

#60 Bye

Bye

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,257 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 295315
  • Joined: 02/05/2014
  • Location:England
  • Handicap:1.3
GolfWRX Likes : 645

Posted 14 November 2017 - 03:58 PM

View Postrsballer10, on 14 November 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 14 November 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

View Postchisag, on 14 November 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

View Postpinestreetgolf, on 13 November 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

View Postchisag, on 13 November 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

... Perhaps you are too young to have seen them, but the best players in the persimmon-balata era did not have pure swings. Far from it. What they did do was control the ball as well as how they navigated a course and had the mental discipline to recover from their bad shots or manage their good ones. "I think its how someone navigates a course and handles their emotions." was even truer then than it is now. Navigating a course was just more difficult because the ball moved much more and every little mistake was exaggerated. They all worked the ball, some one way and some both ways. Chi Chi Rodriguez, Tee Trevino, Raymond Floyd as well as Arnie and Jack. None of them had pure swings. They just were able to get the club head back to the ball the same way when needed for any given shot, even though they had what would be considered today, as serious swing flaws. It took much more talent to play back then. Again, I don't compare todays players to players then because we don't know how Dustin Johnson would have played back then. He grew up with different equipment and he has mastered them because the skills of 1970 is not needed today, but had he grown up during that time his game would have developed differently and he still may have been one of the best in the game.

Right, but its all relative.  They all had incredibly pure swings *relative to each other*.  They weren't competing against trackman, playing since you were 3 years old to the exclusion of all other sports, pressure plates, body maps, etc... etc... In terms of competing against each other, they all had pure swings.  Trevino's fade was just as unique as Rory's power alley draw.  Its just that we don't see it the same because it wasn't as good.  But relative to his playing competitor's the overall situation was identical.

We've learned over time that "working the ball" isn't usually very smart.  That isn't a technological advancement, its a metrical shotlink advancement.  Mastering one ballflight and using it 95% of the time (as today's pros do, per shotlink) is a more effective way to play.  We don't play that way because we have M2 irons, we play that way because shotlink has taught us that working the ball leads to higher scores over time, and GIR is king (not working it to a pin and risking missing, but hitting a stock shot over and over and over).

Your argument is akin to saying NBA players don't shoot mid range jumpers and only take 3 pointers because shoes are better now.  The game is understood better now.  It has nothing to do with technology.  Just like the NBA has learned through analytics that mid range jump shots lose games and three pointers win games, we've learned "working the ball", 'shaping shots" and "shotmaking" is simply an inferior way to play compared to always hitting the same spin/direction shot over and over.  It has nothing to do with the technology in the clubs, just like how the NBA is played now compared to 1965 has nothing to do with the sneakers.

... You can think whatever you want about technology and how it effects talent and I certainly have no intentions of attempting to change your mind about something I personally experienced, but you are completely missing the point about the balata era. They worked the ball because the ball was always moving not because it was a superior way to play, because it was not like todays ball that wants to go straight. Nicklaus said pick a shot and use the whole fairway working a fade from the left side or a draw from the right because the ball most definitely was gonna draw or fade. Starting it down the middle and not knowing which way the shot was gonna curve cut the fairway in half. Having played then I can assure a straight shot was extremely rare, even from the best players in the world. And because the ball moved so much it was harder to control. Especially if you were going at it with a fast swing, as the faster the swing the more the ball moved. Now add to that persimmon drivers had a ton of gear effect because the sweetspot was the size of the head of an eraser. Mishits were just much more penal.

I get it dude. I don't understand why playing with a whiffle ball "allows the talent of the best baseball players to shine through". A ball with an unpredictable flight makes talent less important to winning because it introduces variance. You are making my argument. If the ball flies every which way the result is way more luck based than a ball that doesn't.

Would you argue that Pete Rose (or whoever). isn't the best hitter because he doesn't hit a whiffle ball? I mean, when Pete hit it it went where he hit it. It didn't unpredictably curve in the air? What a dope. Nobody would argue that making the ball less predictable would help spot "true talent". Otherwise you'd have whiffle balls at baseball tryouts.

I'll accept you liked it better, but to say a balata ball takes "more talent" because you "don't know which way it will curve" is silly.

It's not like just jack was using it. They all had to deal with it.  It just made it more random. A balata ball makes it harder to play golf for sure, but when ALL players are using it the "difficultly factor" is cancelled out - they all have to hit it. Since they all had to hit it and it wasn't predictable, the increased variance obscured talent. You don't bring talent to the top by introducing a whiffle ball that flies wherever and saying "deal with this" UNLESS only one player has to use it. If everyone has to use it it just obscures reality (like having a home
Run derby with a whiffle ball - doesn't tell you nearly as much as a straight ball).

If we set out to find the most talented hitter in baseball, would we use old maple bats that were super thin and a whiffle ball? In tennis, would we use the old 1960s wooden racquets and the semi-hard grass balls that randomly don't go up? Of course not. We wouldn't do it in golf either.
The flight with balata is not random. The ball spun and curved more. It's not really the equivalent of a wiffle ball.

I would like to see the ball completely rolled back, not necessarily to balata.

Everyone does have to play the same ball, no matter what. But it does boil down to what do we want the game to be about. Precision, shot making, control. That's what I want. Right now it's geared for distance, and putting.

I'd like to see the game be one where both a bomber and a shotmaker can both survive on the PGA tour.

Well said, maybe then some of the older classic courses could be used again for tour events.

A ball with the distance of a balata but with a modern cover would be perfect.

I've stopped watching golf on tv. It seems to be mostly a bombers course/putting contest or a straight hitters course. Styles make fights.

Taylormade 2017 M1 10.5 - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X - 44.5 inches
Callaway Rogue 3 Wood - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X
Titleist 716CB 3-9 - X100
Vokey 46.08, 50.08 - X100
Vokey 56S, 60M - S300
Scotty Cameron Select Fastback
Titleist Pro V1

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors