Does Modern Golf Technology have too Much Technology?

[TourSpoon]

Agreed. This is a real non-issue for me like requiring pants. The information available to the pros versus the lasers used by amateurs is similar with an edge going to the pros with the detailed green and course books. Having lasers put away for the competition round (not the practice rounds) is akin to wearing pants because it is a marketing issue. I have to feel that the Tour wants a professional look with pants and that a pro or caddy running up and down the fairway with a rangefinder takes away from the image the Tour wants on television or in person.

[ncaney]

Originally Posted by Aging Boomer

For me, it's not the technology as much as the busy-looking appearance of modern gear.  When I took up the game over fifty years ago, golf equipment was beautiful.  Now it looks like Star Wars toys!.

I couldn't agree more. I would be embarassed to play with much of the oversized equipment today. Taylor Made Spider putter just tells the world you are a bad putter, Ping Craz E putter should be used for taking your shoe size, and Odyssey will make anything (can anyone explain the Dart to me?) I will not even get started on drivers.

For me the feel of hitting a great shot is what inspires me to play golf. Beautiful and cleanly designed equipment helps put me in a positive frame of mind. Busy graphics and odd shapes sticking out of clubs is not technology, it is usually just a distraction or marketing scheme to sell more clubs.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Regarding the highlighted portion. There was a huge leap in equipment technology when metal shafts came out (~late 1920s I think). The advantage was a stiffer more consistent shaft that allowed for a more agressive swing. The modern swing.

There were advances in ball technology, adding ~ 20 yards or so over the years. The real advance is adding a modern shaft, a modern driver head, and a modern ball with low driver spin and high wedge spin.

The scores haven't plummeted because 1.) courses are longer and you still have to putt. Shots veering slightly off line now have more time to drift into trouble, 2.) pins are now cut in ridiculous position that would have had somebody fired back when I worked on grounds crews, and 3.) like several posters have unknowingly stated in this thread, more and more people who really not very good at this game are playing it regularly, and enjoying it, because technology occasionally gives them the illusion they have some game.

Interesting. Assuming that's a correct analysis, I'd say that argues that the technological advances are fine. After all, there hasn't been a serious breakthrough in the game in almost a century. Point 3 is certainly a benefit to the game, and since there still seems to be competition at the top, it's hard to see an insurmountable downside. (Point 2 is certainly a problem, but relatively easily corrected, if course designers think creatively about other ways to increase the challenge.)

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zeg

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Regarding the highlighted portion. There was a huge leap in equipment technology when metal shafts came out (~late 1920s I think). The advantage was a stiffer more consistent shaft that allowed for a more agressive swing. The modern swing.

There were advances in ball technology, adding ~ 20 yards or so over the years. The real advance is adding a modern shaft, a modern driver head, and a modern ball with low driver spin and high wedge spin.

The scores haven't plummeted because 1.) courses are longer and you still have to putt. Shots veering slightly off line now have more time to drift into trouble, 2.) pins are now cut in ridiculous position that would have had somebody fired back when I worked on grounds crews, and 3.) like several posters have unknowingly stated in this thread, more and more people who really not very good at this game are playing it regularly, and enjoying it, because technology occasionally gives them the illusion they have some game.

Interesting. Assuming that's a correct analysis, I'd say that argues that the technological advances are fine. After all, there hasn't been a serious breakthrough in the game in almost a century. Point 3 is certainly a benefit to the game, and since there still seems to be competition at the top, it's hard to see an insurmountable downside. (Point 2 is certainly a problem, but relatively easily corrected, if course designers think creatively about other ways to increase the challenge.)

Not sure I'd say there hasn't been a serious breathrough in almost a century. You were saying one guy was introduced to the game playing different clubs than his father was, which is probably not true, other than the ball.

It's funny when someones reasons for their opinion is another person reasons for something completely different. Certain shots are definitely easier for unskilled players when using modern equipment. That's great for a person who otherwise likely would have quit, but the overall game is not easier for the average player who didn't have trouble getting a 3-iron airborne, but now faces much tougher course setups meant to challenge a small minority of elite players.

I'm sure what I just said is further proof that the PGA Tour should use SGI equipment and a juiced ball, but I still maintain my original opinion on the subject.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not sure I'd say there hasn't been a serious breathrough in almost a century. You were saying one guy was introduced to the game playing different clubs than his father was, which is probably not true, other than the ball.

It's funny when someones reasons for their opinion is another person reasons for something completely different. Certain shots are definitely easier for unskilled players when using modern equipment. That's great for a person who otherwise likely would have quit, but the overall game is not easier for the average player who didn't have trouble getting a 3-iron airborne, but now faces much tougher course setups meant to challenge a small minority of elite players.

I'm sure what I just said is further proof that the PGA Tour should use SGI equipment and a juiced ball, but I still maintain my original opinion on the subject.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but you're certainly correct that the facts leave themselves open for interpretation in different ways.

Let me try to rephrase my point. Before I do so, let me point out that "father" and "son" are metaphorical here---I really just mean older and newer equipment. Based on the equipment I've seen, there's been a fairly continuous improvement (or at least change) in golf clubs over the past decades. In the absence of a sudden phase-change event---a new technology that completely upends the previous generation---how do you decide what era to identify as traditional?

Should we adopt the style of club that immediately followed the introduction of the steel shaft, simply because that is when the modern golf swing arose? Should we allow only the improvements that brought us to the game that was played when Hogan played? Nicklaus? Where do we draw the line?

My basic point is that, as a rule, there wasn't anything unique about the state of the game when any one of us began playing. It was just a point on the continuous evolution of golf. When specific technologies can be identified as causing a measurable problem---e.g., the groove rule---that can be fixed. Trying to fight technology shifts more broadly is, in my opinion, counterproductive, and we're better off letting the game adapt.

[k-troop]

I don't think there was a single innovation which completely changed the game, but there was certainly a decade (or two) which did.  Composite shafts and metal woods were both introduced in the late 70s and in wide production by the late 80s.  The multilayer, solid-core, eurethane ball was introduced around 1999-2000.  These three developments (with the ball being by far the most impactful) allowed tinkering and tweaking of various products to a degree never before attempted on a mass scale.

I would argue that combined, this period (maybe we'll call it 25 years) was a revolution in golf technology, at least as significant as any other period of change since the origin of the game.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zeg

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Not sure I'd say there hasn't been a serious breathrough in almost a century. You were saying one guy was introduced to the game playing different clubs than his father was, which is probably not true, other than the ball.

It's funny when someones reasons for their opinion is another person reasons for something completely different. Certain shots are definitely easier for unskilled players when using modern equipment. That's great for a person who otherwise likely would have quit, but the overall game is not easier for the average player who didn't have trouble getting a 3-iron airborne, but now faces much tougher course setups meant to challenge a small minority of elite players.

I'm sure what I just said is further proof that the PGA Tour should use SGI equipment and a juiced ball, but I still maintain my original opinion on the subject.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but you're certainly correct that the facts leave themselves open for interpretation in different ways.

Let me try to rephrase my point. Before I do so, let me point out that "father" and "son" are metaphorical here---I really just mean older and newer equipment. Based on the equipment I've seen, there's been a fairly continuous improvement (or at least change) in golf clubs over the past decades. In the absence of a sudden phase-change event---a new technology that completely upends the previous generation---how do you decide what era to identify as traditional?

Should we adopt the style of club that immediately followed the introduction of the steel shaft, simply because that is when the modern golf swing arose? Should we allow only the improvements that brought us to the game that was played when Hogan played? Nicklaus? Where do we draw the line?

My basic point is that, as a rule, there wasn't anything unique about the state of the game when any one of us began playing. It was just a point on the continuous evolution of golf. When specific technologies can be identified as causing a measurable problem---e.g., the groove rule---that can be fixed. Trying to fight technology shifts more broadly is, in my opinion, counterproductive, and we're better off letting the game adapt.

Other than the ball, there was gradual incremental improvement between the 1930s and 1970s. Equipment, including the ball, from 1940 is certainly inferior to that from 1980. There was perimeter weighting introduced in the 80s (or earlier), but at the professional level, the real leaps forward came from about 1995 to 2005. Reversing the changes made to current driver / ball combination since ~ 1995 would be pretty easy at the pro level. But I never actually suggested any era was best for the pros. Just that it's a shame the way many great courses have become obsolete for tournament golf at the highest levels. At least unless they want to bring in guys to trick them up every year.  Hackers can do what they want - they're not the issue I take with technology. Watching my buddy's towering 230 yard drives do indicate technology has made our home course obsolete for the average stiff like me.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by chipanaputt

Hi all. This is my first post here so at the risk of entering into anything too controversial....

Equipment-wise I'd plumb for limiting the amount of loft on wedges. I don't think the comparable loss in distance between the old persimmons and modern titanium drivers would have any more effect now then it had before. A long hitter was long in the 70's, 80's. 90's and now.

I think the short game has changed as much as anything. The great wedge players 20 years ago were using a maximum of 56 degrees on wedges. Nowadays with players using 60 degree wedges you don't have to be great to pull off great shots.

Looking back to how far I hit the ball in the 80's and how far I hit it today, not really that much difference. Ok, I'm getting more from my swing now than when I was in the first flush of youth, so Yes, the modern equipment has helped me stay competitive a lot longer, but it's not that much more than when I was younger.

My vote would go for the loft on wedges if the governing bodies ever decide to do something about the technology.

Just my two cents.

I disagree, 60 and 64 degree wedges didn't come about for nothing; the balata ball and softer, slower greens of years past meant anything above a 56 wasn't necessary to hit all the shots. You could make the ball dance with lower lofted clubs, but now you need the extra loft to hit the same shots with the new ball and faster greens. If you brought back the balata and 70s course conditions those clubs would go away on their own. Also, it takes plenty of skill to use those wedges, and the shots are no less impressive. If anything, it forces a player to give up space in the bag.

I think a more interesting rule change might be a 10 club rule, at least for a tournament or 2. It'd be interesting to see, but I doubt it would make a good long term change.

[newtogolf]

If that's your concern then you can stick with your older irons and woods and ignore the new club technology.   Sounds like you're trying to justify not buying those new Mizuno irons you said you liked in the other thread.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Other than the ball, there was gradual incremental improvement between the 1930s and 1970s. Equipment, including the ball, from 1940 is certainly inferior to that from 1980. There was perimeter weighting introduced in the 80s (or earlier), but at the professional level, the real leaps forward came from about 1995 to 2005. Reversing the changes made to current driver / ball combination since ~ 1995 would be pretty easy at the pro level. But I never actually suggested any era was best for the pros. Just that it's a shame the way many great courses have become obsolete for tournament golf at the highest levels. At least unless they want to bring in guys to trick them up every year.  Hackers can do what they want - they're not the issue I take with technology. Watching my buddy's towering 230 yard drives do indicate technology has made our home course obsolete for the average stiff like me.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

If that's your concern then you can stick with your older irons and woods and ignore the new club technology.   Sounds like you're trying to justify not buying those new Mizuno irons you said you liked in the other thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Other than the ball, there was gradual incremental improvement between the 1930s and 1970s. Equipment, including the ball, from 1940 is certainly inferior to that from 1980. There was perimeter weighting introduced in the 80s (or earlier), but at the professional level, the real leaps forward came from about 1995 to 2005. Reversing the changes made to current driver / ball combination since ~ 1995 would be pretty easy at the pro level. But I never actually suggested any era was best for the pros. Just that it's a shame the way many great courses have become obsolete for tournament golf at the highest levels. At least unless they want to bring in guys to trick them up every year.  Hackers can do what they want - they're not the issue I take with technology. Watching my buddy's towering 230 yard drives do indicate technology has made our home course obsolete for the average stiff like me.

If that's how you've chosen to interpret my opinion on this completely unrelated topic, that's your choice I suppose. Now where'd I misplace that facepalm?

[BugDude]

Limit the tee to only extending from the ground a quarter inch and you'd see the 460cc driver heads shrink real quick.  4 inch tees and heads the size of a basketballl do not take near the accuracy or control in ball striking.

I'm just curious how many people have actually ever played wooden woods, blade irons, and balata golf balls.  You should give it a try just for nostalgia, curiosity, or to practice your ball striking.  For those of us who have played with both the 60s and 70s technology as well as today's we at least have actual experience with both from which to speak.  If you have never played the old school stuff, how can you possibly understand the experience?  Give it a try and you will appreciate that it is indeed a different game.  Not necessarily better or worse, but different.  Until you try it, you can't possible understand.

[Leftygolfer]

My opinion is the technology in golf has helped everyone, from the average hack to the touring pro.  But the game is still plenty hard.  The pros were hitting it super solid in the past and present.  Hacks like me are all over the club face.  The forgiveness in drivers helps me hit it farther and maybe a little straighter.  I never played with old time clubs so I'm not sure how they would perform.  But most can't hit greens now.  I'd imagine the courses were a little shorter and hacks of the past weren't hitting greens.

No club can replace a good move.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by Aging Boomer

For me, it's not the technology as much as the busy-looking appearance of modern gear.  When I took up the game over fifty years ago, golf equipment was beautiful.  Now it looks like Star Wars toys!.

Luuuuke ...

[The Tin Man]

That's funny!

FT  - Fugly Technology iQ 10?

[saevel25]

"I find your lack of faith disturbing"

[chicagogolf]

Technology is ruining the game. Its making the game too easy for Pros and harder for amateurs. You may think I'm crazy for saying technology is making it harder for amateurs, but it is. Clubs are becoming too long and too lite all in the name of making money when the truth is people are spraying the ball everywhere. And its really hard, not to mention expensive, for beginners. Do people realize the stupidity of all this... we produce clubs that increase distance, and then we redesign golf courses to make them longer, and in most cases, harder for amateurs. This in turn produces 5 hour rounds. So we are paying more money for 10-30 extra yards and we are paying higher green fees. Someone please explain the difference between hitting a 250 tee shot on a course that tops out at 6600 yards versus a 300 yard tee shot on a course that tops out at 7200. Or how about this situation: you hit the ball 275. your buddy hits to 290. you get a new shaft. now you hit it 300. then he gets a new shaft. now he's hitting 330. so now you are right back where you started only each person is less $400. Its so stupid. golf has become too much of a business.

[WUTiger]

Originally Posted by BugDude

... I'm just curious how many people have actually ever played wooden woods, blade irons, and balata golf balls.  You should give it a try just for nostalgia, curiosity, or to practice your ball striking. ...

I played MacGregor MT blade irons from 1974-1994, and MacGregor persimmon woods from 1985-1994. Blades worked OK in years when I could play a lot, but not so well in dry years - hard to stay on top of them.

The persimmon woods, because the shafts were heavier, had more of a "whole club" feel to them. Early steel-headed metal woods seemed to be rather head-heavy.. Titanium metal woods not so much so.

As far as balata, I was cured of those balls in the late 1960s. I got a dozen Titleists for Christmas (during high school), and found I could gash the covers with an off-center driver hit, much less a slightly thin 9-iron shot. After that I always played early distance or mid-spin balls.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by chicagogolf

Technology is ruining the game. Its making the game too easy for Pros and harder for amateurs. You may think I'm crazy for saying technology is making it harder for amateurs, but it is. Clubs are becoming too long and too lite all in the name of making money when the truth is people are spraying the ball everywhere. And its really hard, not to mention expensive, for beginners. Do people realize the stupidity of all this... we produce clubs that increase distance, and then we redesign golf courses to make them longer, and in most cases, harder for amateurs. This in turn produces 5 hour rounds. So we are paying more money for 10-30 extra yards and we are paying higher green fees. Someone please explain the difference between hitting a 250 tee shot on a course that tops out at 6600 yards versus a 300 yard tee shot on a course that tops out at 7200. Or how about this situation: you hit the ball 275. your buddy hits to 290. you get a new shaft. now you hit it 300. then he gets a new shaft. now he's hitting 330. so now you are right back where you started only each person is less $400. Its so stupid. golf has become too much of a business.

This is a very good point(s).  When you think of it this way, then yeah, the whole "race" is kind of silly.  If we could go back in time and dial back everything (clubs, balls, courses) we'd be better off.  Like you said ... proportionally to each other, we're all the same, and then we are all playing quicker rounds since the courses are shorter.

P.S.  Love your avatar!  Best one on here, I think.