News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2011, 01:00:15 PM »
Would the increase in the speed of greens have helped to compensate for the advancement in technology?  Being above the cup when green speeds are at 5 is a lot different from when they are ramped up to 12.
Therein lies the reason - courses may be easier because of equipment improvements, but the faster greens are far more difficult for 98% of players.
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2011, 01:19:11 PM »
Garland;  For those of us who grew up playing with persimmon woods, the old blades and balata balls there is no question that we can hit the ball further and that it is harder to make the ball curve to the same extent as the old balls.

As I wrote earlier, this ball benefit accrues not to the average guy who couldn't afford waste money on balls that would cut wide open every 3rd hole. My length off the tee has lessened by at least 50 yards with age and putting the new equipment into play. Why? Primarily, because the new balls gave no new length to those who had always been using two piece balls. I will give you that the COR on the new woods can give a slight increase in distance, but it mostly accrues to the best players. I think a bigger factor on modern woods is the increase in shaft length. Which unfortunately makes the average guy just hit it further into the hay.

Quote
...Incidentally, the lower lofts are offset by weight distribution which allows for higher ball flight from lower lofted clubs.
...

This is a common fallacy brought to you by those lovable marketing folks at golf equipment companies. To get higher ball flight, you have to get the weight behind the clubhead, not down the the clubhead as golf companies would have you believe. An iron head has too little weight behind the club to make a noticeable difference by moving weight down the clubhead. It is something they can measure on their computers, but it is not something that can be seen by the golfer. Hybrids get weight behind the clubhead, thereby allowing higher ball flight that can actually be seen by the golfer.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2011, 01:22:26 PM »
Would the increase in the speed of greens have helped to compensate for the advancement in technology?  Being above the cup when green speeds are at 5 is a lot different from when they are ramped up to 12.
Therein lies the reason - courses may be easier because of equipment improvements, but the faster greens are far more difficult for 98% of players.

Even if this were true, 98% of players don't play greens that stimp at 12.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Patrick_Mucci

Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2011, 02:14:45 PM »
...
Think of the difficulty in getting carry distance, approach loft, etc., etc..
...

But yet C B MacDonald disinherited a relative (was it a son) for having the temerity to drive the green on a par 4 that C B said could not be driven.


You're confusing roll, total distance with carry.


 Patrick, you are in denial about the capability of the old equipment. P. T. Barnum to you baby.

Garland, I'm not in denial, you are.
You're forgettig that I played with that equipment and you haven't. ;D

;


SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2011, 02:18:11 PM »
Garland;  I am one who loved playing with the old clubs and balls.  But the improvements are real.  I still have my Ram Tour irons and my Maxfli Australian blades.  I play Miura's which have only minimal cavit improvements.  There is a noticeable difference.  the ball is different.  I can see it and compare it to how it reacted when I was 20 or 30 years younger.

As to the greens, you are correct.  Very few play at 12.  But a lot play at 9 or 10.  Back in the day a green at 8 was pretty darn swift and 6 and 7 were not uncommon.  So they are still consideably faster.  I can remember when the fastest greens were cut at 5/32 of an inch.  Today that is very high.

Nonetheless if the point is that the manner in which one swings the club remains the greatest factor in how one scores, I agree wholeheartedly.  That is what allows the game to continue to be the great challenge that it is despite all of our efforts to screw it up.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2011, 02:20:03 PM »
Pat -

I took a careful look at both aerials of the National Golf Links of America.

They look pretty much the same.

I've come to the conclusion that GCA.com has been repopulated with cretins.


The only major difference I can see is that bunker on the left side of the seventeenth fairway has been turned into two bunkers and a waste area.

Then you lack a discerning eye.



Can you point the specific differences that add up to "far, far more extensive" bunkering and an "exponential" increase in difficulty?

I'm not going to do your work for you, but, start at the 18th green and work backwards


While you're at it, take a look at Shinnecock and let me know if you notice anything different about it circa 1938 versus today, in terms of bunkering and difficulty


JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2011, 02:24:11 PM »
SL Solow,like an idiot,I gave away a set of Australian blades 20 years ago.It still pisses me off.They were the best.

Do you ever play with them?

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2011, 02:36:09 PM »
Once in a while.  They are still fun and feel great but are shorter than my miuras and  it is more difficult to control trajectory.  I might be able to fix some of that by reshafting them but I don't want to change them.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2011, 02:40:44 PM »
Pat -

The burden of proof is on you. You have made what I consider to be a reckless claim about the bunkering at the National Golf Links of America and in doing so passed judgement on its caretakers over the years. If I were to draw a conclusion based on these two photos it would be that the people charged with preserving this course have done a remarkable job of it.

For example, the only change on the eighteenth hole is the division of the bunker behind the green into four smaller ones. It looks to me like the amount of sand presented on that hole has decreased by about five percent.

Beef up your argument and give us a few examples of these "exponential" changes you are talking about.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2011, 02:44:36 PM »
Pat, I too may be a cretin as well, but I am with Michael.  Maybe never having been there makes it tougher to see the differences that are obvious to you but the two versions don't look terribly different to me.  Could you describe how a few of the holes are much easier today and why?
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2011, 03:03:38 PM »
Pat,all these questions/issues could have been avoided if you'd finished the Magical Mystery Tour as we asked.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There's no refuting it, is there ?
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2011, 03:18:58 PM »
Pat,

I too think you have checked into Happydale Farms with TEP and are sharing your delusions about NGLA.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back