how many strokes is new equipment worth?

I guess I am curious. At the end of a round, the only thing that is truely important is the number on the score card. Sure a new driver will hit the ball further, but distance doesn't always account for lower scores. A new technology golf ball will hold the green better, etc. So I am curious to know, how many strokes today's equipment has really saved the "average" golfer.

Lets assume the golfer in question is a 16 handicap, by all accounts your average avid score for somebody who takes the game serious.

and for the sake of arguement, said golfer has all the latest equipment (GI clubs, lightweight shafts, titanium headed driver with modern graphite shaft, top of the line 3 piece ball, etc) and generally shoots around 90.

What would he shoot with equipment from 15 years ago? -
-steel headed drivers
-old graphite shafts
-cavity back irons
-no hybrids
-balata golf balls
-etc

What would the same golfer shoot with technology of 30 years ago?
-wood headed clubs
-blades
-aluminum shafts
-old golf balls

If I am a little amiss on the exact years and technology that was available that that time please feel free to correct me.

P.S. I am not trying to point out a "run what ya brung" or anything like that, I realize that buying golf equipment is a right of passage to all golfers young and old, rich and poor.

it is all about confidence.
if a new driver, irons, or putter gives you a lot more confidence, then it will most likely lower your scores

I'll say 5 strokes for 15 yrs and 10 strokes for 30 yrs.

I'll have to try it sometime with my grandfather's clubs.

Given time, i could probably adjust to any of equipment i use. But the loss of the hybrid would be the biggest thing to overcome. So much of my game between 190 and 230 yds is dependant on hybrids.

Looking back on the 15-20 years I have been playing I would say it is probably worth 3-4 strokes. One thing that has to be mentioned is the current course design also. It used to be that a 7000 yards course was way too long and only the best could play it. Now, 7000 yards is almost normal. So on the same course from 15 or 30 years ago, the equipment probably makes a difference.

I have thought about making a return trip to all the short munis I played growing up. I look back and the courses were pretty easy even at the time. With today's equipment, they are probably really easy now. One longer hole I can think of was downhill with a small pond at the bottom. No one could hit over at the time. Now I wouldn't think twice about pulling driver and hitting a normal shot over the water. Some of that is me being a better player, but the courses we played with the lesser equipment compensated for the lack of equipment. As the equipment evolves, some of the courses have evolved too. Those that haven't are becoming outdated.

confidence may be key to paying as one would like, but courses are becoming longer than 7000 yards as an answer to the advances in golf technology whether it be with balls, clubs, etcetera. as for 15 to 30 years ago, the equipment could be used today but the "outdated" technology would be a little difficult to break 90 for the 16 handicap. however, in an issue of golf digest a few months back, supposedly padraig harrington used his fathers +30 year old clubs to compare against the newer models and they fared surprisingly well.......

I would say equipment is about 10% of the game so about 1 - 2 strokes is my guess and maybe an extra stroke for a new putters and wedges.

I think it depends on how good you are.

The better you are, that 10 yards extra or that ability to hold greens is going to give you that 2-3 shot savings you're looking for.

For me though... it's 10 more yards in the forest or my approach that holds the rough (Vs. green) and so... not much. Having said that, I hit a 44 on 9 the other day (I've never gone under 100 in my life prior) and that's all due to 1 thing... practice. I have a set of "not too hot" clone golf clubs under the guise of the "it's the indian, not the arrow." I'm wondering now if it is time to get some new clubs.

if givin the 30 ry old clubs i would say the same golfer would lose 15-20 shots because of grooves,and how hard to hit wood drivers and old blades are to hit.

IMO, the score wouldnt change much. Even though golf equipment has improved dramatically in the past 10-15 years, score that average golfers are shooting havent gone down.
If you have a good swing, you can hit any clubs well. As the old adage goes, "its the archer, not the arrow".

I like the above estimation, but also keep in mind golf courses are getting longer to compensate for the equipment. Saw in a golf mag today that PGA longest drivers in 1989 was 280, Daly in 1999 was 305, Bubba in 2009 is 312. But like I said, how much longer are the holes that Bubba is driving on compared to the PGA driving distance leader in 1989? I dare say the average par 5 on tour is longer than 32 yards compared to the same par 5 in 1980. If so, the guy in 1989 has the advantage. Depends on how you look at it.

I don't think new clubs make that big of difference. I would suggest working on your short game. A couple years ago I started focusing on keeping a steady head after reading a Golf Diget article by Hank Haney. I then bought a product on ebay called the Steady-Head which is pretty cool and actually works. I took 3-4 strokes off my game in less than one year by working on the short game and keeping a steady head.

its my own personal opinion if you like something your going to play well with it. ben hogan grew up using equipment similar to the ones you described and he got down to it, he had to start somewhere. if your good enough you will be able to bring your handicap down in time. new modern equipment will help. but if tiger or kim went back twenty years ago and had to use all of that equipment i think they would only lose out on a bit of distance. if you can hit the ball straight your scores are going to drop. they will drop further if you can play consistantly

That's a good point. I have three in my bag. They would be a huge loss.

I have been playing a long time, used a lot of the equipment mentioned in the OP, am I a better golfer today then years ago, probably. I score better today than years ago, but not sure that makes me a better golfer, and I would not say it is related to the equipment. I play a lot different, I play a lot more within myself and play smarter, however my handicap is just a few strokes lower now than say 10 years ago.

Let's go first with the part in bold:

the golfer in question is a 16 handicap . . . who takes the game serious. I'm going out on a limb and saying this man, as a 16 hdcp who takes the game seriously, is either not that athletically gifted (i.e. no natural talent for golf) or he has some type of physical or mental limitation that prevents good scoring over an 18 hole round - be it lack of strength or flexibility leading to a lack of distance, poor eyesight (check), or poor health (physical or mental - 18 holes with vintage clubs does require a bit more stamina and focus). Let's also assume that the player in question gets to hit this "new" kit on the practice range. Here is my take: Scenario #1 "What would he shoot with equipment from 15 years ago? My guess is +15 to 20 strokes on an average track which has OB and water hazards on at least a few holes. Here's why I think this. -balata golf balls I'll bump the ball to the top of the list, because that's really the most important piece of equipment. There's balata and there's balata - if he never got the chance to play a real bonafide tour balata ball, he'd might be too freaked out to play the back nine. If he's a long-but-wild 16-hdcp. His draw? Snap hook. His cut? Banana slice. His bladed sandwedge from 130? An out of round ball that leads to a mystery 4-putt. This could add anywhere from 0 to 20 strokes. If the 16-capper is a short-but-straight shooter he may only notice a couple strokes difference here - the ones lost due to length will be made up by closer approaches and improved feel on the greens. This one is likely a wash. -steel headed drivers -old graphite shafts With older vintage graphite shafts, these clubs could have the appearance of smaller versions of his modern (since ~ 2006) driver and fairway woods. New metal woods with properly matched new graphite shafts however, hit the ball higher, farther, straighter and more consistently, with less effort. Even though the player knows his drives will be a little shorter and wilder, after the first couple tee shots or par 5 approach shots came up short (don't forget the balata balls too) he'd likely start to over-swing and put more than one tee ball OB and/or deep into the woods. In addition to the extra strokes off the tee, a couple attempts at a heroic recovery (with the fairway woods) may add strokes. -cavity back irons These would likely be very similar to his current irons, if they both come with good quality steel shafts. There were a lot of iron sets in the early 90s though, that came standard graphite shafts (marketing BS) and it's really hard to say how these would stand the test of time. My guess is that he'd likely spray the ball a little more, but that's due to hitting a little more club into the greens. If this is one of the rare mid/high-handicappers who has strong mid and long iron game this may not add any strokes at all. -no hybrids Most people with hybrids have lost whatever ability they may have had to hit anything longer than a 6 iron into a green. They typically can't vary the trajectory or the flight path in order to work the ball into hook or slice pins. With traditional long irons and fairway woods you have to either hit the front edge of the green of land in the little strip of fairway and run the ball up to the pin. Hybrids carry all the trouble that fronts the green left and right. This would mean a lot more short pitches for birdie or par, rather than medium length putts. This would add at least 5 strokes. Scenario #2: What would the same golfer shoot with technology of 30 years ago? Add the same 15-20 strokes. -old golf balls This would lower the bar for the rest of the round right away. You wouldn't typically fire at pins and hit high shots that carried green-front hazards with a mid-70s era golf ball - unless you're a really long/high ball hitter who naturally puts a lot of spin on the ball. Mr 16 could try to be a hero, but reality would set in real quick. This realization might take a couple holes though. I'm assuming of course that we're talking about wound balls surlyn - not balata. The hooks and slices would be magnified (compared to a 2009 era ball) but hot quite like balata. This would add at least a 1/2 dozen strokes. -wood headed clubs These are not quite the handicap some people think they are - assuming of course (like I did with the first scenario) that Mr. 16 is using quality equipment that suits his tempo and skill level and that he had a chance to hit them at the range - but they require a complete overhaul on course management. Wild 16 - this guy would struggle all day. In an effort to get the ball in the air he'd be launching worm burners, snap-hooks, and banana splits into the woods on the front nine. On the back nine, if he got the tempo under control, he might be okay. Add as many as 10 strokes, just for penalties! Short 16 - he may after the first couple holes realize all the shot possibilities with persimmon (or even a maple laminate) woods and shoot about the same or even lower (when compared to his his 2009 woods). He might hit some nice fades and draws that would leave the best angle of attack on his second shot. He would likely be short of the hazards and have fewer penalty strokes (even though Mr short hitter 16 probablty doesn't take too many of those anyway). -blades You don't have to be a low hdcp to game blades. My suspiscion is that everyone can hit blades - if they have the right blade mated with the right shaft and grip combination for their game - same goes for any club at any hdcp. The one thing blades don't typically give you is the forgiveness on off centre hits and the long irons typically fly a little lower. This might easily add 1/2 a dozen strokes due to having a bit longer first putt. They are nicer around the green for the shots requiring some creativity, so the short hitting 16, might come out pretty even here. -aluminum shafts I could be wrong, but I think that very few iron sets actually came with aluminum shafts. Steel shafts have been standard for clubs since they were first mass produced (1930s?). Good quality steel shafts were consistent throughout the set and actually pretty close from different manucturers right off the hop. The swing I need to use for my mid-1950s MacGregor blades is pretty much the same swing (tempo) I use for my mid-1980s Hogans and Titleists. I really doubt that by 1979 (30 years ago) there too many aluminum shafted clubs being made. My limited experience with aluminum shafted irons tells me they were total garbage. I had a couple really nice (looking) sets of mid-1960s blades with aluminum shafts. I tried to like them on the course, but they just really really . . . sucked. Thanks for the making me use my brain on a Friday!

One factor people forget is improvements in turf grass and irrigation.

In the 1990s, I lived north of Dallas and later in Southwest Oklahoma. When courses got rebuilt, a much healthier turf grass was planted and watered better.

Courses I played before the rebuild had rather thin, scrawny rough that wasn't much of a penalty. After the rebuild, a ball in the rough often called for a short-iron chop shot back to the fairway, and sometimes a full wedge to get up and down.

Also, distance improvements in clubs and balls only help if you hit the ball pretty straight. Trees have grown much larger at several courses I used to play back here in St. Louis in the 1970s. The doglegs have gotten a lot narrower.