Issues in golf- technology

I'll keep it short 'n sweet- do you think technological advancements have been good or bad for the game of golf?

the modern ball, hybrids, big headed drivers- are they removing the skill element from the game?

Bad . . .
and . . .
Yes

Good . . .
and . . .
No

Good, and no.

Nobody talks about technology being bad or removing skill from other sports. Why does golf want to remain in the rose tinted past of Goldfinger V James Bond at Stoke Poges with uni flex shafts, persommon drivers and Penfold Hearts?

kwinigolfer wrote:Bad . . .
and . . .
Yes

but technology also makes the game more accessible to beginners and recreational golfers, is this a fair compromise?

It is great at amateur level as you have clubs that are far more playable and available at lower prices but at pro level where the playability is less of an issue than the distance, it has meant that a lot of courses are relegated to a drive and a pitch.

I think you could reign in the length and retain the playability/forgiveness.

The best players will still be the best. The longest hitters will still be the longest but the average Joe will still be able to benefit from a club that goes 80% of the distance the 90% of the time they miss the sweetspot.

Although this would mean a massive change in golf courses as they are now set up (even old ones) for players hitting the ball further and not running it in. Courses with water hazards would have to look at even bigger changes to their length. Not easy.

My concern is that space-age technology is taking the pro game further away from the amateur/club game.

As far as I'm aware, golf is the only sport that has to stretch its playing field to accomodate new clubs, balls etc; every other sport is still contained within the genius of original playing dimensions (cricket has seemed even to bring in boundaries to propel the run-rate).

It takes more space, and much more time, to play golf on a 7,500 yard course than it does a 6,750 yarder. Courses are becoming obsolete and pro rounds are taking five hours (and amateurs follow their lead). Most amateurs have no business playing a course longer than 6,500 yds, whatever equipment they're using.

If the ruling bodies of golf were concerned about accessibility to amateurs it's highly unlikely they would have banned "anchoring" while turning a blind eye to more egregious distortions of the game.

what I don't get with the courses is why just because the ball goes further they make the course longer. Ikea make it a bit longer here and there but why not just make it harder. narrow the fairways grow llonger rough speed the greens. accuracy of the tee is not yet 100%o

Beninho, I agree with you but the problem also lies in that certain holes were designed with certain shots in mind so for instance a long par 4 (465yds) at my course has a bunker that is about 60 yards short of the green and a big green that feeds in from the side of that bunker. The idea is that you are hitting a long second shot so can take on the bunker and run the ball onto or near to the green if you get over. But a big hitter is hitting it about 280-300 yards so even if you tightened up the fairway they are only left with 160ish to a big green. They now can forget the bunker and shoot at the pin.

The only way you could really make it hard for them would be to rebuild the green or put a load of bunkers in at about their driving distance. But at the current rate these would have to change in a few years too.

Obviously the hole is much easier than it was and as the average golfer probably only really drives the ball about 220-230 yards its still a long way but I use it as an example of how much a course would have to change which is obviously expensive.

I am also talking about good club/scratch golfers here. Imagine what touring pros could do to it. Driver and a lob wedge.

By the way I think that the hole was too long and still is for most players but I am trying to use it as an example.

Does anyone know what the sort of distances people were hitting at the end of the persimmon era? Both pros and amateurs?

In my youth, 1960's and 70's I was considered a long hitter and have played with, on the odd occasion, some world class players of that time. 230-240 yards off the tee, with a steep faced - very few actual loft angles given then but probably about 9 degrees - persimmon headed club with a stiff shaft, was viewed as a very long drive and most mid handicap and quite a few single figure club players were pretty happy with 200 yards off the tee.

It was also quite normal for everyone to carry a 2 wood in the bag for the longer holes or even use the driver off the deck. But even then, only with a great deal of run could par 5 holes be reached in 2.

The pros could hit the ball a little longer than that, but not a great deal, as they mainly stayed within 90%, used course management techniques and worked the ball. There was very little of the 'crash bang wallop' golf seen today and courses were only viewed as 'tight' if the fairways were less than 20 yards wide with a 2 yard short cut and then knee high stuff, including under any trees.

Balls took spin a great deal more then and anything wide of the fairway was in real trouble and needed a provisional to be taken, So most players would try to hit to a controlled level.

I'm not talking championship courses here - although they were tight - but your average bog standard club course was like this. In fact any course that was wide open with little trouble was viewed as 'American style pap'. Am I right or not Kwini?

Whether golf is easier now or not (although I believe it is and is due to technology outstripping the courses), is a moot point. What is certain though, having played in both eras, it is a radically different game now!

Difficult. For me, I'm proud of putting the effort I've put in over the years to become reasonably proficient at this damned game.
Fortunately for me, I hate the look of a typical hybrid but I think they've taken away a lot of the skill in hitting a long approach shot or the 'iron off the tee'.
It's still a challenge to hit a modern driver consistently long and straight but I think, again, the modern drivers have taken away a lot of the skill.
The modern balls have made too much of a difference too I think. I love the fact urethane covers don't cut the way balata used to but spin like a so-and-so off the wedge like balata. I think marrying short game control with a lot lower spin off a long club (unlike balata) has perhaps gone too far now though.
Personally, I think a lot of modern kit panders to those people who have the attention span of a gnat and can't be arsed to put the necessary practice in. I don't really give a damn if this is a hard game and I don't buy the argument that the game should do all it can to attract as many as possible to play - although I can see the issues if too many are discouraged.
All that bitching done and dusted however, I don't think the average amateur handicap has decreased at all over the last I don't know how long and it's hysterical watching these people trying to hit that 3-hybrid out of deep rough because the advertising and mythology says hybrids can be hit out of long grass...

As for the 'persimmon era', Nicklaus was capable of hitting it 300+ with persimmon and balata and even I could hit it 260-270 with a (very)good one in the early 80's. That said, Nicklaus was unusual and I far too often combined a big cut or hook with my favourite persimmon Maruman driver, something I don't get now even with a particularly bad one.

Difficult one for me as I haven't played golf so long, and have no experience, or fond thoughts of wooden clubs and balls filled with rubber bands. I did play squash, and the advent of graphite rackets was a godsend. I also welcomed screw in studs for my football boots rather than nailing them in - really I remember those, although mostly we had rubber soled boots not dissimilar to modern spike less golf shoes! I digress!
The ruling bodies have been slow to get a grip of technology, particularly balls, but, that said, virtually all pro and amateur scoring, records and tournament winning scores, are similar. What did Greg Norman use to shoot 63 at St Georges?
It is a great shame that distances have been altered, and this damages some courses. Nonetheless if course designers were more imaginative, and courses were set up appropriately there is no need for them to get inexorably longer. Narrow the fairways, make bunkers hazards and reward golf shots not missile launches! Short par 4s produce as many problems as long ones in the right circumstances, and pros typically score worse on par 3s than 4s and 5s. The answers are all readily available!

I pretty much agree with shanker and nbs, although not the characterisation of "American courses"! Just as much a variety here as there, in my experience.

But I DID dig up PGA Tour "driving distances" from 1980 when almost everyone was using persimmon drivers (I still use a persimmon 3-wood! and 5-wood!!):

1st: Dan Pohl: 274 yards
3rd: Fuzzy Zoeller: 271.5 yds
9th: Weiskopf: 269.1 yds
10th: Nicklaus: 269.0 yds
24th: Watson: 266 yds
67th: Trevino: 259.2
171st: Mike Reid: 244 yds (pretty much the lowest ranked competitive player.)


1990:
1st: Purtzer: 279.6 yds
4th: Norman: 277.6 yds
13th: Couples: 272 yds
24th: Zoeller: 270.7 yds
40th: Watson: 267.4 yds
171st: Pavin: 255 yds
189th: Mike Reid: 248.6 yds


2000:
1st: Daly: 301.4 yds
2nd: Woods: 298.0 yds
T3rd: Love/Mickelson: 288 yds
13th: Couples: 284 yds
38th: Els: 278 yds
195th and last: Pavin: 251 yds

2012:
1st: Bubba: 315 yds
5th: McIlroy: 310 yds
9th: Daly: 307 yds
32nd: Woods: 297 yds
51st: Els: 295 yds
191st and last: Nick O'Hern: 268.9 yds

So, on average, the longest drivers have gained 40-odd yards, the very shortest have gained about 25 yds. Compound that with the distances players hit irons and it's easy to how golf courses quickly become obsolescent if they don't have inherent design features that reward precision over distance.
As most spectators, whether on the course or on their couch, want to see power, it's inevitable that old-style design features become passe.

And then we try to imitate them!

Thanks for digging those numbers out kwini as they really show how the game has changed. With 40 yards more off the tee and iron shots that also go further it is not hard to see that how a hole that was driver/5 iron is now drive and wedge.

I guess people have to ask themselves if the shorter but more subtle game of old or the new distance game are preferable?

Do you want to engage with the strategy of a hole or uncouthly barge over it?



As a youth I often played on a short course of under 6000 yards which meant most par 4's were a blast with a driver and a wedge. One day I decided to hit only irons from the tee to get some practice with longer iron approaches. Suddenly the course became a lot more interesting a within a few holes it became apparent that the position of the tee shot was vital. So a course I long dismissed as a pitch and putt suddenly revealed its secrets when it was not being abused by modern technology.

I have no doubt the same could be said for many of the shorter courses around the country.

I'm i the good and no camp on this one. It has made the game more playable at amateur level. It's not just the clubs and balls either.

GPS/Laser technology have allowed the amateur player to have the instant distance information previously only available to a Pro with a good caddy (saving the need to look at a strokesaver and go pacing up and down).

Goretex fabric is another unsung change that has allowed players to play in light moderate rain and stay comfortable.

Getting back to the clubs, there are a huge selection of options these days, shaft flex's, lofts, offsets, movable weight ports. Coupled with a fitting on a trackman this gives the amateur access to custom fitted clubs previously only available to a Pro. In theory he/she should therefore be better equipped to play the game to a better level and enjoy it more

Having said all that, whilst it's great that the amateur now has access to all that stuff, it does not alter the fact that to improve further there is no getting away from practice and more practice.

With regard to courses....many have fallen into the trap of feeling they have to be much longer. Ok in places maybe yes, but in other places holes can be modern-proofed by making landing areas tighter thus placing much more risk for the boomer and demanding a higher degree of accuracy.

" holes can be modern-proofed by making landing areas tighter"

What if you take bunkers out of play or remove the ideal angle to the pin?

Both things a shorter and more accurate player could use to gain an advantage through. So avoiding running into a bunker (more likely if fairway surrounds bunkers) and finding the correct part of the fairway.

No fun if the only strategy is laid out so blatantly because the fairway is so tight.

I just think it's a bit of a fallacy that its all about length and courses need to be lengthened to protect them Mac.

For example...Pebble Beach must be one of the shortest courses on the US Open rota and yet...what was Gmacs winning score in 2010? How many players finished under par?? and it wasn't blowing a hoolie either it was typical June coastal California conditions.

Looking at it from the player side, Luke Donald is by no means a long hitter but in 2011 he dominated the game. Zac Johnson (a noted shorty) won the Masters on what is now a very long golf course. How come Dustin Johnson or Colesaerts don't win more regularly??....because its NOT all about length.

Kwini - great stats, thanks for those. Do you know if they measure the same way ie 2 holes per round? Always seems a bit like a society long drive comp. I recall Quiros bemoaning the fact at one tournament that the measured holes were not driver for him so he was showing badly in the stats!
Absolutely no doubt the ball goes further - in my case often further into trouble! That must have changed the game, but most sports have seen changes. Balls and rackets in tennis, ball boots etc in football. In most cases kit is lighter, stronger but is still operated by the best practitioners to produce results.
I wonder if anyone will beat Tom Watsons score at Muirfield 1980 (271) in this years Open Championship? Faldo twice and Els didn't!

That is quite amusing that Quiros feels that need to be seen to be showing up well in those stats (to the point of complaining about the hole used not being a driver hole). Of course you wouldn't catch me taking a driver when I could take something less risky eh Puligny?? :-p

JAS - don't know what you mean!!
How was Cyprus?

puligny,
Not positive about the measurement of the driving stat's, but no reason to believe it's not the same as now.
Many/most of the Champions Tour guys are also hitting it further than they did in their playing prime.
Doesn't work for me though . . . . . .

puligny wrote:JAS - don't know what you mean!!
How was Cyprus?

Nice and warm Puligny ...stuck to Elea as Secret Valley is currently resembling a building site as they put the 2nd course in. Aphrodite still think it's cool to charge 150.00 a round so ended up having 3 rounds at Elea (50 Euros). Also got a couple of vouchers for free twilight rounds to be used by the end of September (which I'd quite happily give to a guest booking the villa). If not I may pop back out in late September for a few days.

Nicklaus has just said on live TV that the ball needs to be changed. some ridiculous tee shots out there today.

I assume I hit it further now than 25 years ago when I started playing, but I feel like I hit it better now than I did 1995-2000 and I'm off 9 now and was 6 then. Granted I'm at a tougher course and am in my forties not my twenties but if the technology is helping that much I'd expect to be as low now. As has been pointed out, the average handicap hasn't come down (though I happen to believe that's testimony to the system and its ability to rank golfers against their peers rather than the courses they play) so it seems mainly in the pro ranks that the technology has made massive differences.

I still take my old Joe Powell Persimmon out a couple of times a year.

If I hit it right on the sweet spot, it goes within 10 yards of a good hit with my TM r7.

If I miss-hit it, it can be 40 or 50 yards behind a good hit with my r7.

A real miss-hit with both (hard to do with the r7) results in the r7 being about 30 yards ahead.

I hit it further with my TM irons than I used to years ago with whatever I used then, but I know that it's mainly because what used to be called a five iron is now called a six iron. My TM 3 iron produces almost the same flight and distance as my old Ping 2 iron.

The main difference I see though, is that even with the persimmon driver, I am at least 10 yards further down the fairway than I used to be. So the main difference is the ball.

George, I have just changed my TM r7 for one of their new RBZs and although I think that the shaft is inferior to the one I had fitted on the r7 I think it goes about 20 yards further than the r7. I am definitely well past where I was hitting the old one.

Shame that its 20 yards further into the trees!

As for the hc's not going down I would think a lot of this is down to the old adage, "drive for show, putt for dough."

I've tried an RBZ but it didn't really go any further.

I'm looking out for an R11s, but not prepared to pay much.

George,

A friend has just traded in his R11s as he hated it. He now has a Cobra which he bought after a trip to a local range where he'd planned to buy a Ping. The pro there said there are a lot of people selling their R11s's which he put down to their shafts being poor.

Not to say that they are bad as they win a lot of comparison tests but probably worth trying some others as well and see whether it is right for you.

I suspect that a lot of the "TM shafts are poor" stories are rubbish.

I'm quite prepared to believe there are a few bad ones, but the stories are hopelessly over-egged.

I know a couple of guys who have changed clubs because "the shafts were terrible", and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that their swings were truly terrible. And my suspicions have only been increased by another guy paying £500 for a shaft which has increased his drive distance by about 3 feet at the most. After several hours of fitting, I think he should be expecting a bit more than that. He's no straighter either.

I'm hoping to see a Watchdog style expose on golf club shafts soon!

IMO:

The Best players have been able to exploit technology much more than your average weekend warrior. And therefore there is a bigger gap between the a World Class player and the weekend warrior.

For the Pros, the "Whole" is much bigger than the "Sum of the Parts" while the 10 handicapper the "Sum of the Parts" is bigger than the "Whole"

The Sum of the Parts are:

Bigger clubheads
Pro V1 Generation golfball
Graphite/Titanium shafts
Instruction - Video Taping (for near instant feedback)
Computer analysis to optimize launch angle, spin rates

Countering these improvements, golf courses have got longer, green speeds faster, rough longer, and more hazards. All of which negatively impact the amateur much greater than the pro.

Should we really be attempting to put a limit on the application of knowledge?

I really don't see the slightest issue. I've not heard anyone harking back to the days of lace up balls and hobnail boots or Stirling Moss era F1 cars.

Progress moves things on. When would you stop it? It's like going back to a Morris Marina, because it represented a less sophisticated and gentler period of motoring.

super_realist wrote:Should we really be attempting to put a limit on the application of knowledge?

I really don't see the slightest issue. I've not heard anyone harking back to the days of lace up balls and hobnail boots or Stirling Moss era F1 cars.

Progress moves things on. When would you stop it? It's like going back to a Morris Marina, because it represented a less sophisticated and gentler period of motoring.

Actually S_R, there is one person who constantly harks on about the Stirling Moss era cars and that's...............yep Stirling Moss. Forever on about how he is a better driver than anyone nowadays. Mind you, he could well be right there.

And someone up 3-4 posts said the rough is longer nowadays - what poopie! There is virtually no rough nowadays, because people all complain when their ball goes in it and gets lost. Of course I haven't played on all the courses in the world, but I cannot remember the last time I saw thigh high rough 10 yards off the fairway, it used to be all over the place. That is what I meant initially when I said the courses used to be really tight and anything where the rough was cut back and opened up was considered to be very American in style.

super

Is technology a measure of progress?

Developing new technologies based on scientific theory is one way to help achieve progress but not a measure of progress.

In the world of science technology is very closely linked to progress but that is not the same for all fields.

Does technology progress art?

Does it progress philosophy?

Is a sport progressed by technology if that technology changes the fundamental way in which it was meant to be played?

MAc, I've never driven along the road in Germany's finest and thought, Man, progress is rubbish, I wish I had an Austin Allegro.

What you claim as how something "is meant to be played" is not so, it is how it was originally played, but that doesn't mean it has to remain like that or that someone, namely you , gets to decide which year things are not permitted to progress beyond.
There isn't one sport that is played how it was originally played and your assertion that we should play with stones and shepherds crooks is preposterous.

I don't care about art or philosophy, they aren't relevant to sport in this context.

Super

The measures of progress might be; ease of use, understanding, greater social benefits, greater efficiency etc.

Technology could be a means to those ends, but not necessarily. You cannot say all technological advancement is progress.

So to say golf must be better because the equipment now requires more technology to manufacture and design does not make sense.

I'm not saying that Mac, I just don't buy that technology has ruined or is ruining golf.

You still need a lot of talent to be good at it, and technology will never replace practice.

If there had been no technological advancement in golf, the vast majority of us would not be playing the game at all. Hickory shafted clubs and feathery balls were so expensive in relative terms that the "ordinary" man could not afford them. So technology has actually played a massive part in allowing the "ordinary" man to play the game.

super_realist wrote:I'm not saying that Mac, I just don't buy that technology has ruined or is ruining golf.

You still need a lot of talent to be good at it, and technology will never replace practice.

I actually agree with both of these statements s_r.

I don't know about Mac, but I do not believe that technology has ruined golf, but it most certainly has changed it. I enjoy my golf as much now as I did back in the day, but I do believe it is easier to be fair to middling now than it ever was and that stands squarely at technology advancements door.

There never has been and there never will be a substitute for practice if you want to be consistantly good and not just a 'streaky' player in any sport!

However, I also agree with the camp that says that technolgy has dramatically altered the length and style of golf courses whether new or old. When Dennis Lillee (I think it was him) walked onto the square with an oversize metal bat, the powers that be did not say 'whoops we're going to need a bigger outfield!' No they just banned metal bats - I await being corrected.

Is technology a detriment though?
I think it's probably a good thing for the game that technology may make it easier to hit a ball, as it's already a tough enough game without them being disheartened by hard to use equipment.

I use a combination of old and new technology. Bladed irons which aren't too different from old school blades but modern woods.

Super - is Germany's finest a Bentley or RR?

No I don't think technology is detrimental to a sport, but in golf it appears to have radically changed the game.

Mind you, I'm sure that when the limit on the number of clubs you were allowed in the bag came in, the guys who used to carry around 15 different wedges etc will have said the same thing.

The game from the 50's to 70's really cannot be compared to the game today apart from the maxim - hit the ball hard, find it and hit it hard again ad infinitum until it drops into the correct hole!

Technology in all sports has improved. But most of them still play on the same size "pitch" - for want of a better word - as they used to. Football has got faster as equipment improves and players got fitter. Formula1 - cars have got faster etc. Other measures are introduced to keep up with this technology - professional referees, goal line technology. Engine sizes for F1 are being reduced, mandatory pit stops etc. (Whether they work is debatable) But with golf, I think the pitch is getting outgrown, and nothing has been done to balance the technological improvements.

The only obvious one is to adjust the characteristics of the ball.

I would like to know if technology in sports like archery have resulted in any changes. E.g. has the standard distance to the target moved further away as time has gone on? Remember what happened to the javelin? When I hear players hitting 8 irons 180 yards I am concerned.

I watched a classic PGA tourney on sky last night (Nicklaus birdied the last 5 holes to win, think it was early 80's) and they were hitting a 6 iron about 165 (which is what I used to hit before I got fitted at Ping).
The greens were soooo slooooow compared to what we now see, which I would think would be a lot easier, both for stopping your ball on the green and also putting. Could the advances in greenkeeping technology be keeping things fairly equal (considering h'caps not changing that much). I know that when the greens are freshly 'ironed' at our place they take on a completely different challenge.

I think it's often easier to stop the ball on faster greens. Slower greens tend to have more grass on them which springs back when the ball lands and makes it run on. On faster greens the ball can penetrate the surface and cause a pitch mark. It's not always the case though - I remember playing at St Andrews in hot dry summers when the greens were brown and hard. It was like trying to pitch on a car park. Putting was just a question of getting it moving.

It's not the same these days, the irrigation system keeps it green and even paced when it's hot and dry.

O Shanker get yourself down to Hollinwell  Notts one day.The rough is like hay but strangely easy to find the ball as it is quite thin in a way.Very hard to move the ball far and difficult to take the wedge sideways mentally.last time we were there the members were campaigning for a second cut of semi as there was only one mowers width from fairway to long stuff.Old school.

dynamark wrote:O Shanker get yourself down to Hollinwell  Notts one day.The rough is like hay but strangely easy to find the ball as it is quite thin in a way.Very hard to move the ball far and difficult to take the wedge sideways mentally.last time we were there the members were campaigning for a second cut of semi as there was only one mowers width from fairway to long stuff.Old school.

I've played Holinwell on a number of occasions Dyna - my father used to be a member there until he passed away - Somewhere else on this board, I placed Holinwell at the top of my list for inland courses.

As you say, it is very much an old style course with a real traditional feel both on course and in the clubhouse (used to do a fantastic line in ham sandwiches with hand cut chips).

Haven't played it now for 6-7 years, but it sounds like it hasn't changed.

Good call.

Fabulous place all round.I get to go once a year on a company do and never fails to impress.I usually par the first and second and then its downhill all the way.There is a definite sense of occasion as you enter the premises down that long narrow drive.Lovely

oldshanker wrote:...Haven't played it now for 6-7 years, but it sounds like it hasn't changed. ...

Hasn't changed except they've finally (about time!) realised over the last year or two that the greens aren't what they should be for a course of this quality. Any excuse to play there and I'm off...