[David Panzarasa]

eckstein,
 I don't think I am wrong at all. I have seen Mark Mcgwire hit and he hits the ball VERY well and long! and from someone that was playing a different sport his entire life all day everyday until he retired. Also Brett Hull is now getting serious about golf and just look at what he is doing...with 90% less time and effort then the pros right now. Not everyone is going to play golf well!! Barkely? kidding me? Just because Jordan is not great at golf proves nothing to my point. My point is today people that are playing golf and starting golf are not the same as 20-40-60 years ago. Golf is now mainstream and that gets everyone involved...people that would usually go and play baseball or hockey or something else are not playing golf. If they start and train like they do now, how is it a wonder that they hit the ball longer? better athletes, more conditioning, more proper training. Just look at these schools that the kids are being put into for golf,,they work out 3 hours a day!! they are getting elastic bodies built for a powerful swing, and these kids are better athletes as well.
 The Long Drive challenge,,if you have not watched it, more then half of these people are not avid golfers. The champion of one of the past years just started playing THAT SAME year. He was in such good shape! all he needed to do was focus and learn to hit a driver. With his natural abilities, body, and athleticism you wonder why he hits it so long? These are not skinny little kids that don't work out any more. These are not the guy that is your club champ that is 50+ plus pounds over weight and smoking and drinking anymore. And put this fat out of shape guy in another sport and see him last 5 minutes!!
 I am not wrong on the difference of athletes. Your picking out athletic people that have golf as a hobby or after life from their previous sport. Picking Jordan is dumb, did you also see what he did in baseball? not to well there either! but to prove my point a lot more, he is playing golf! Would that type of person be playing golf 20-40-60 years ago? I don't think so.

[Glenn Spencer]

David Panzarasa,

Is it your contention that Tiger wouldn't win like he does now if he were playing in Jack's time or that he would not be in the same shape that he is in today? What does the condition he is in have to do with anything. Tiger was longer by comparison when he was 17 than he is now. I saw this firsthand and it wasn't even close. It has nothing to do with how far he hits,  the fact that he is in shape. NOTHING. The man knows how to move a golf ball and it is that simple. It is not because he works out.

[David Panzarasa]

 Tiger Wood might have been a bad expample because he is such a great athlete that he would win where ever you put him. But he would be shorter, a lot shorter.

I saw him first hand as well when he was younger...and a couple points to that..Tiger Woods is an amazing athlete! He is only getting better and better..and mind you longer if he wants to go all out as well then he was when he was the skinny kid. Because of his working out!! You dont hear for the past 5 years all the time that the pros are now all working out because Tiger made it a must. so your proving my point there.
 Once again, this is my point...Tiger Woods is an athlete that the sport of golf was not getting 20-40-60 years ago. These golfers today are people that the sport was not getting a while back. Add a work out program that is made for a golf swing and there you have it. Golf is not a physically hard game! Actually it is probably the least physically difficult game there is I can think of. It is the most mental game! It is not hard to hit a ball sitting there and not moving. You add real athletes to this sport and their training and your going to get a game that evolves like every other sport! Playing a four rond tourny is not as taxing on the body for these people today either because their bodies are in the correct shape.

[Jim Nugent]

Tiger was longer by comparison when he was 17 than he is now. I saw this firsthand and it wasn't even close.

Glenn -- in comparison to what?  Other junior golfers?  

[David Panzarasa]

Stupid?
 ok thanks. So since Tiger Woods has come to play the tour, and all you hear non-stop is how all the golfers are now lifting and getting in shape with their trainers because it is a new thing that is here and Tiger showed it (it was every interview for years now, how they are all working out crazy to get in better shape to be longer!!).....that is not something?
  a quote from the LDA.."The reality, however, is that prodigious distances achieved in LDA competition -- typically 375-380 yards, often 400 yards-plus -- are the result of LDA competitors being well-conditioned athletes with fundamentally sound golf swings who combine remarkable hand-eye coordination with explosiveness."
 These are not biffy and todd from years ago who were raised playing golf because that is the class and society they were in.
 If it was only equipment that was making it so long (it must be because like Eckstein says Im stupid) the drives would be going even longer today. Taylor Made came out with the Burner driver with the bubble shaft and that was suppose to be 15-25 yards longer...then next year they come out with a new driver (the 300 series?) another 15-25 longer then the burner! Then the 500 series and yet another 15-25 yards longer then the 300 series WOW. we are looking at 50 yards at least! now lets move to the R5 and the R7..another 15-20 yards longer!! then add the new prov1 which is another 10-20 yards longer. so we are already up to 100-150 yards longer? now we have the the new driver from TM and new shafts which are ever longer then the previous by 20 yards. No, these things are more forgiving..not longer and longer. It does not make sense. It is the indian not the arrow! equipment has only made it somewhat longer but 10x more forgiving. It is the new athlete playing and the shape these people are in.

[A_Clay_Man]

This same kid played the par-5's at -4 too.

7-iron into the 516 yard hole.
6-iron into the 494 yard hole.
5-iron into the 505, beast hole.
3-iron into the 525 yard hole.

All with some wind, but man.
Simply unbelievable.
Mind Boggling.

And, most of all.  Outta control.

Also, we played a 228 yard par-3, uphill, and into a 30mph wind.  He takes a 4-iron, and puts it 20feet.
I take a driver and make 4.
wow.

Jordan, Did you both play the same era ball? Club? Are you implying this kid doesn't have skill? It's all about the equiptment and it's outta control?

It's a poor Indian who blames his arrows.

Either "this kid" has ability, or he practices more.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jim,

Yes, other junior golfers. Some of the same ones that he faces today. The fact is, he is just long and always was. If he wasn't cut, it would not affect his distance at all.

[Craig Sweet]

Tiger an athlete? Hardly.

He's a well conditioned golfer, but he is no athlete....even he admitts he has little in the way of athletic skills beyond golf.

[Dave_Miller]

Last night I watched the ReMax Long Drive Contest.

It was held at night, when it's cooler and the air denser.

One fellow carried the ball 390 yards.

 
The USGA's former test model was Iron Byron with a Driver clubhead swing speed of 109 mph.   I believe it was in 2004 that the USGA increased the testing model to a swing speed of 120 mph.

Yet, most of the swing speeds at the ReMax were much higher.  One was measured at 155 mph.

It's clear that the testing model is lagging far behind the actual swing speeds being swung by the finalists.

 What can be done to make the USGA more aware of the problem ?

Patrick:
Dick Rugge, Sr. Technical Director of the USGA, is well aware of everything you say.  
However Facts, not myths or fiction or opinions, will drive their decisions.  
At the USGA Regional Affairs Committee Meeting in San Mateo, California two weeks ago Dick Rugge gave his presentation on this.  
The test Club is set at 120 and the average swing speed on the PGA Tour is 113.  It was adjusted in 2004.
I will email you Rugge's facts.
Best
Dave

[John_Cullum]

Keep in mind they are using shafts 48 to 50" long, and they go through driver heads faster than I go through tees because the club face collapses after a relativley low number of hits. I doubt their methods will impact the game much.

[Pete Lavallee]

David,

According to Tiger himself he was longer when he was a teen! Now either he is a liar or lifting all those weights has actually made him shorter. Which is it?

Your contention that no fine atheletes ever played golf is ludicrous. There may perhaps be more fine atheletes playing golf today but the sport was never played soley by skinny rich white kids. In fact it is probably the advances in equipment that has allowed taller players to participate and excell at the game. Try building a 45 inch driver with a persimmon head and 130 gram steel shaft and tell me today's "superior atheletes' could produce the same results they do with today"s equipment.

[David Panzarasa]

I am not saying that no good athletes have not played golf before, but comparing to today it is not a contest.
 If being a better athlete (which i believe there are so many more today playing golf) and being in good shape and training the body (using science) then why is it all the pga tour players have come out the past few years saying they started working out all the time now? And mentioning because of tigers woods being so long and in such amazing shape? I jsut wonder why?
 The long drive contest has people that are not even real golfers, they are just in sick shape and learned how to hit the driver. These people are monsters, great shape, and work out to built the muscles for that swing. hence getting long off the tee.
 John Daly and those logn drive pinnacle people have those contests to see who can outdrive them out at ranges...they are getting beat! and not once in a blue moon either. and this is by your good golfer from a local range. not a pro either. USING LESS equipment then these LDA guys. You have better golfers and bigger strong people out there playing golf now.
 If you ever see these LDA people on TV, you think 20-40 years ago they would have played golf seriously? No, it is huge on tv, cool thing now, and people are seeing how fun it is and how much money is in it. Meaning more people, better athletes, and people working on their bodies.
 why am I the only one that sees the golfers evolution? it is in every sport. They all get bigger, faster, better...and not mainly because of equipment.
 The equipment has is not getting much more advanced in terms of length, and probably did a couple of years ago. This equipment is being made more forgiving and helping to keep the distance on off center hits. and bad shots.
 Pete,
 the advances in equipment to help taller players have equipment that fits them has what to do with length?
 and look at charles howell, he is tiny! Have you ever seen him in person? He is small and little, yet how many people back in the day swung as hard as him and work out as much as him? he is in perfect shape. He is also a work out freak as well. Camillo Vegas (sorry for the wrong name) another small guy that is in perfect shape and and athletic and works out to get his body to perform properly. And he is one of the longest on tour. I guess I just see it differently. I certainly believe equipment has made everything easier and better for the golfer....but a major thing people are not seeing is who is playing golf today and what they are doing off the course compared to year before. not sitting around watchnig tv, but working out hours a day. If being in great shape and getting the muscles that help a strong swing are not important then I just wonder why all the pga tour players are working out so much now?

[Pete Lavallee]

If being in great shape and getting the muscles that help a strong swing are not important then I just wonder why all the pga tour players are working out so much now?

Because the penalty for a DUI is much more severe these days; it's just plain safer in the gym .

[David Panzarasa]

Pete,
 good call lol
 Also, if tiger is shorter today what does that say? He is playing a brand new state of the art driver with state of the art shaft and state of the art balls. He is shorter in his physical prime? He was not as good nor a good swing when he was a teen. So, i would think then he is shorter because he is not trying to be as long (just a thought) or the equipment is not changing anymore! it is just more forgiving. Has to be one of the two. I dont think there are any other options

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Miller,

Thanks for the email.
I get the USGA news as well, but am having a problem with my computer when it comes to opening links.

I've heard the same arguments for years now, and yet, golfers are getting longer and longer.

Has everyone forgotten JJ Holmes and his predigious length when he won a tournament.

When guys in their 60's are carrying the ball 300 yards, a lot farther then Nicklaus carried the ball in his prime, in his 20's and 30's, there's a distance problem, and it's effectively ruining the great courses of America because most of them are reacting and altering and/or disfiguring their golf courses.

It's not just about the ball and the equipment, it's about great architectural masterpieces being rendered obsolete, hence altering the golf course to present a modern day challenge.

How do you think Billy Casper and Hale Irwin would do playing their 1959 and 1974 equipment on a 7,400 yard Winged Foot today ?

[Pete Lavallee]

David,

I think that you really answered your own question when you said that Charles Howell III can hit it much further than Michael Jordan; some people just have a knack for hitting the golf ball long and straight. If athletisism was the only govenor of distance, Michael Jordan would clearly be the longer and better player than Charles Howell III; but he's not.

As far as Tiger, he's stated he  was longer when he was younger, I believe because he tried to hit it farther back then. Although you may argue that his swing is more refined today, he was no slouch in his youth; didn't he reach 15 at Augusta with a drive off a steel shafted and steel headed Cobra driver and a PW in his first Masters? He has continually stated that he works out to improve his stamina on the course; he's not trying to get longer by building more muscles. In fact building more muscles would probably restrict his flexability and turn into a golfing liability.

[Pat Brockwell]

The USGA's position is that, statistically, distances haven't increased that much.  Ask them and thats the talking point they go to.  I wrote a note with my dues about the issue and identified myself as a superintendent and owner. I got a phone call from a fellow in the equipment testing department and we had quite a long chat and the bottom line was "We are looking at the issue but its not really such a big increase."  I think they are failing in their position as protectors of the game. Let em feel the heat.

[David Panzarasa]

Pete,
 I never wrote or compared charles howell to Jordan. But that is my point, different people are playing golf now and doing different things to get longer. Working out being one major major factor. Reason why charles howell is so long. And I agree with you on people having a gift or skill to hit a golf ball and some dont. And by no means am I saying all athletes are good or should be good golfers, hell no. I am saying more athletic people are playing golf today. The people we see at our local muni or on the college golf team or on the PGA tour coming up are not the same mold as it was years ago.
 And the Tiger Woods thing, just like I said, if he is shorter now it is because he wants to be. You saying he was longer when he was a teen to me goes wth my point I think. He was using steel shafted much less advanced driver then, and now he is using state of the art and the longest equipment you can buy and is shorter. Even if he scaled back (which we all know he did) his swing to make it tighter, with this amazing equipment jump people are talking about he would be as long or longer then a his teen years.

[Pete Lavallee]

David,

Although I can't read Tiger's mind (if I could I'd have some nice visions of Elin though) I believe he meant longer in a relative sense. It's undeniable that he's longer with his 45 inch graphite shaft than he was with his 43 inch steel shaft that he used for so long. I believe his contention is that given the same weapon and ball, he was longer when he was young and spry than he is today.

[Glenn Spencer]

Charles Howell and Tiger faced off in the 1996 US Amateur and the talk was not about how short Howell was off the tee. Howell was 17 at the time and could really get it out there. It just goes to show that you either have talent or you don't. If you are long without muscles, you will be long with them and if you are short without muscles, then you will be short with them. I think of Fred Funk, here is a guy that is in great shape and muscular and works out and he can't hit it out of his shadow compared to the other guys, Herron will blow it by him all day long. Tim Herron knows how to hit it long and nothing will change that. Eric Patton-1989 US Amateur Champion- what was he? 6 feet 350? long as can be. It does not matter!!!

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Your "You must be kidding !" ought to be addressed to all those who continue to try to minimize the huge impact technology has on the game, including the USGA.

And this idiot David Moriarty thinks these new ProVxs and such are much longer for long hitters than those old legal Pinnacles were back then?

Tom, if we were speaking face-to-face would you repeatedly call me an "idiot?"  If so, what do you suppose would be an appropriate way for me to respond?

I never said the ProV1x is "much longer" than the old Pinnacle.  In fact, I dont care how long the old Pinnacles were since the the old distance balls did not otherwise perform well enough to be of use to better players.  

To set the record straight, I did question your contention that the old Pinnacles flew the same distance as the Pro VIx.  I still question this, as should you after the USGA published charts showing around a ten yard distance difference even among the top low spin balls being used on Tour today.

[Dave_Miller]

Dave Miller,

Thanks for the email.
I get the USGA news as well, but am having a problem with my computer when it comes to opening links.

I've heard the same arguments for years now, and yet, golfers are getting longer and longer.

Has everyone forgotten JJ Holmes and his predigiousl length when he won a tournament.

When guys in their 60's are carrying the ball 300 yards, a lot farther then Nicklaus carried the ball in his prime, in his 20's and 30's, there's a distance problem, and it's effectively ruining the great courses of America because most of them are reacting and altering and/or disfiguring their golf courses.

It's not just about the ball and the equipment, it's about great architectural masterpieces being rendered obsolete, hence altering the golf course to present a modern day challenge.

How do you think Billy Casper and Hale Irwin would do playing their 1959 and 1974 equipment on a 7,400 yard Winged Foot today ?

Patrick:
The most interesting statistic Dick Rugge showed was average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters on tour.  
In 1980 the average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters by driving average was 60.
In 2005 the average position on the money list of the longest hitters by driving average was 70.
If only the big hitters are the winners how can this be?
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

The most interesting statistic Dick Rugge showed was average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters on tour.  
In 1980 the average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters by driving average was 60.
In 2005 the average position on the money list of the longest hitters by driving average was 70.

If only the big hitters are the winners how can this be?


Dave,

It's a diversionary defense, at best.
It only reinforces my point.

The correlation between length and winnings has absolutely NO relevance to the fact that golfers are hitting the ball farther, much farther.

What Rugge can't come to grips with is the negative effect distance is having on great golf courses.

He like others, views the issue solely as an I&B issue, not an architectural one.

Why has WFW been pushed back 7,400 yards as a Par 70 if distance isn't an issue ?

As to scoring,
We know that fairways have become narrower.
Hole locations dicier.
and that hazards are being added at new DZ locations

All of which affect scoring.

But, again, scoring has nothing to do with the FACT that the ball is going longer.

In 1967 I don't think there was a man alive, age 40 and over who could hit the ball 300 yards, let alone carry it 390.

Now, kids 16 and guys getting ready for Medicare do it routinely.

But, according to the experts, distance hasn't really changed much over the last 40 years, AND is basically maxed out today.

Do you, and does anybody else really believe that ?

If so, who's dispensing the cool-aid ?[/color]

[DMoriarty]

Patrick:
The most interesting statistic Dick Rugge showed was average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters on tour.  
In 1980 the average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters by driving average was 60.
In 2005 the average position on the money list of the longest hitters by driving average was 70.
If only the big hitters are the winners how can this be?
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

Dave,  

I think that the statistics you site are good examples of why we ought not to take everything the USGA says or implies at face value.  I am not sure what they are up to exactly, but the USGA seems to be on some sort of propaganda campaign, trying to prepare us for something . . . .  Bottom line, they do not seem all that concerned with presenting us with meaningful facts or analysis.  

I dont think that these statistics say anything at all about how distance is changing the game.  

You ask: "If only the big hitters are the winners how can this be?"  

No one ever said that ALL big hitters will necessarily be winners, or that the ten biggest hitters will necessarily win the most money.   Again the USGA is asking the wrong questions.  

Think about it . . . should we really conclude that there is no correlation between distance and Tour success just because a few guys in the top 10 hit it really far but dont win much money?  Instead of looking at qualifiers like Scott Hend or Nationwide graduates Scott Gutschewski and Brett Wetterich, wouldnt it make more sense to see if the correlation between distance and winning has changed over the years?  Surely the USGA knows this.  
 

[Jim Nugent]

Patrick:
The most interesting statistic Dick Rugge showed was average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters on tour.  
In 1980 the average position on the money list of the 10 longest hitters by driving average was 60.
In 2005 the average position on the money list of the longest hitters by driving average was 70.
If only the big hitters are the winners how can this be?
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

Dave,  

I think that the statistics you site are good examples of why we ought not to take everything the USGA says or implies at face value.  I am not sure what they are up to exactly, but the USGA seems to be on some sort of propaganda campaign, trying to prepare us for something . . . .  Bottom line, they do not seem all that concerned with presenting us with meaningful facts or analysis.  

I dont think that these statistics say anything at all about how distance is changing the game.  

You ask: "If only the big hitters are the winners how can this be?"  

No one ever said that ALL big hitters will necessarily be winners, or that the ten biggest hitters will necessarily win the most money.   Again the USGA is asking the wrong questions.  

Think about it . . . should we really conclude that there is no correlation between distance and Tour success just because a few guys in the top 10 hit it really far but dont win much money?  Instead of looking at qualifiers like Scott Hend or Nationwide graduates Scott Gutschewski and Brett Wetterich, wouldnt it make more sense to see if the correlation between distance and winning has changed over the years?  Surely the USGA knows this.  
 

David -- most of the PGA's longest hitters do very poorly on tour.  Of the top 20, I think only 4 or 5 were in the top 50 or 100 money winners last year.  Tiger, Sergio and Vijay are exceptions, not rules.  

What's more, of the top ten or twenty money winners last year, nearly half were short to medium hitters.  They did not rank in the top 100 in driving distance.  

Obviously the balls are going further.  Obviously this is changing strategy and making many courses obsolete.  There is still a whole lot more to winning golf than hitting the ball a mile, though.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()