Does Modern Golf Technology have too Much Technology? - Page 3

I am kinda torn, i can see why it might have damaged the game, but all players have the advantage, so its kinda equaling it out. IF the scoring average dropped 1 point, it probably dropped 1 point through out the PGA, not just a select few. If it gave such an advantage to DJ, BW, JBH, then why are they not winning multiple times a year and crushing at the majors. The best players are those who are accurate. Look at luke donald, not a top driver of the ball, but great with irons, short game and putting, and he was amazing last year. The whole concept of distance is a myth.

The only part it isn't is in the long irons. A 3 iron today is 19-21 degrees, that use to be a 1 or a 2 iron 30 years ago. Now you add in that they are more forgiving, you have a better shot of hitting a green with long irons. Thats the only advantage i see over the past. If i was going to lay down some rules, have some sort of metric for forgiviness on an iron and limit pros to how forgiving the irons can be. Also, i would reduce the driver size from 460cc to 400cc, they will still be slightly more forgiving than the past, but distance shouldn't fall off to much, but it will make some mishits, actual miss hits. Those are the two things i would do, and it would leave alot of room for leeway. Golf should be a skill, and it shouldn't be masked by technology. 

I remember in the late 80's and 90's when there were a lot of big men in basketball and athletes that could dunk people said the players had outgrown the 10' hoop and the NBA needed to raise it to 11'.  Instead of giving in to popular opinion the league stepped back and looked that the game and how they wanted it played.  Rather than making the crowd pleasing dunk harder, they introduced the 3 point line.  This rule change was the ideal solution because it allowed the big men to dunk all they wanted but the league rewarded those who could shoot from the outside with an additional point. 

The easy solution for golf is to change the equipment rules and reset distances for the pro's (or everyone), but that would be equivalent to raising the hoop in basketball.  Instead the right decision IMO is what Erik suggested, add shorter holes and grow the rough.  This will allow the big hitters to still swing out of their shoes, but risk the penalty of hitting into hazards and truly overgrown rough.  Meanwhile guys like Luke Donald can snipe their way around a course with their precision short game. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nututhugame 

There were a lot of good ball players before Jordan. Absolutely none that played to his level though. If you are insinuating that Jordan was only good because the refs were told to look the other way (I don't know if you are) that is absurd. Jordan changed the way young boys on every court everywhere played. He put a vision in the head of every hopeful basketball player that had not been there before. Tiger did the same thing for golf. And now the generation who grew up holding themselves to a never before seen standard is on the tour.

 

The very high 50's have been shot... a couple times. Do they really shoot 50's though? No. Have there been advancements in clubs? Yes. Have they really made that much of a difference? Not really. No more than the fact that golfers work out in the gym, can watch vids of themselves with lines drawn on themselves to show exact spine angles and plane and so on, ungodly practice facilities where coaches can tell them everything they do wrong the moment they do it, and the monitors that give them exact results so they can dial in their fitting until they have maximized their ability to their limit..

 

Oversized drivers, laser milled wedge faces, solid core multilayered balls, and 48" putters with heads that look like a protractor and are bigger around than a driver are all modern equipment developments.  The anchoring to the body was an adaptation developed after the introduction of the equipment variation.  Limit equipment variations and these problems would not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno 

Thanks. You hate technology but what does any of that have to do with putting with the butt of the club anchored in your belly lint repository?
 

 

It isn't that I hate technology.  For the average weekend duffer, it has been great for the game and the enjoyment of it for people on up into their golden years.  But for PROFESSIONAL golf, it has just gotten ridiculous.  The single biggest thing they could do is institute limits on the ball that can be used in professional golf.  The next would be no hollow clubs.  Whatever material it is made of has to be solid through and through...no multi-material heads.  Those two changes alone would make a world of difference in professional golf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

It isn't that I hate technology.  For the average weekend duffer, it has been great for the game and the enjoyment of it for people on up into their golden years.  But for PROFESSIONAL golf, it has just gotten ridiculous.  The single biggest thing they could do is institute limits on the ball that can be used in professional golf.  The next would be no hollow clubs.  Whatever material it is made of has to be solid through and through...no multi-material heads.  Those two changes alone would make a world of difference in professional golf.

Ping woods, for one, have had metal soles for 40 or so years.

Also, try making a club out of aluminum; it will not last a year of heavy use. Solid titanium would be prone to deforming from shock, and it would cost a ton of money. Wood without a sole plate? Expensive, not durable, and heavy. Also, many woods contained inserts, hollow chambers, and the like.

My guess is that the PGA would lose some distance by going to 70s clubs and balls, but the LPGA would suffer worse, as would weaker players.

Limits on the ball exist already, and they are currently as long as they can get. Only optimizing spin, feel, and the dimple pattern can possibly make the balls better.

The first belly putter patent was applied for in 1961 and issued in 1965.  The first solid ball was introduced in 1968 and multi-layer solid core balls made their appearance in the mid 1990's.  The oversized driver was introduced in the mid-80's.  So not sure how you came to your conclusion that these other developments resulted in the belly putter. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

Oversized drivers, laser milled wedge faces, solid core multilayered balls, and 48" putters with heads that look like a protractor and are bigger around than a driver are all modern equipment developments.  The anchoring to the body was an adaptation developed after the introduction of the equipment variation.  Limit equipment variations and these problems would not exist.

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid a post of mine started this debate.  I do not hate technology, it has indeed enabled many a weekend duffer to enjoy the game more and play well into older age.  Including me.  The game is more fun when you can execute shots without having to spend 12 hours per week on the range to hit a sweet spot the size of a pencil eraser.

My post was more towards PROFESSIONAL golf, in which people make their living competing in the sport.  The balls are probably the biggest difference.  Put some limits on professional golf ball characteristics.  I believe that woods were never meant to be hollow.  Make a professional rule that says whatever your club is made of it has to be solid material and not hollow or bi-material outer shell and inner body.  Those two changes would make a huge difference in professional competition. 

I agree there is merit to having one game and one set of rules for all, but what is the answer?  Perhaps it is course design and architecture.  Courses do not have to be long to be tough.  Risk and reward characteristics can force players to play 2 irons again.  Rough can make a guy think twice before busting his shoe laces with a driver.  Doglegs that can't be carried are indeed a force equalizer when it comes to distance.

There are other sports in which there are rules governing consistencies in equipment.  Nascar has a car template that defines the overall shape all of the cars must be regardless of make.  The names (chevy, ford, toyota) are merely sponsorship stickers and mean nothing to the shape of the car or the motor.  There is nothing at all "stock" about stock car racing as it was back in the day.  They don't race the same cars we drive.  They race machines that were hand built from the ground up that share nothing at all in common with stock cars. 

I don't know what the overall answer is, but it would be interesting none the less for there to be a professional tournament once a year in which today's professional golfers used persimmon woods, blade irons, and balata balls with no graphite shafts, hybrids, metal drivers, etc.  Call it the Old Geezer Retro Throwback Tournament.  Make it fun.  Perhaps that would at least satisfy the curiosity of a few of us remaining old school golfers that used to play with this stuff and appreciate the challenges and skills the old school equipment presented.

By the way, I still use an old set of forged Golden Ram Tour Blade irons with steel shafts...not because I have to, but because I want to.  The new fangled oversize cavity back graphite shaft composite crap that I have (several sets of them) stays in the garage.  You cannot work the ball (including controlling trajectory as well as shaping left and right) with a forgiving club.  I still like workability over forgiveness.  My old amateur carcass does enjoy the benefits of a big headed lightweight hollow driver though. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

The first belly putter patent was applied for in 1961 and issued in 1965.  The first solid ball was introduced in 1968 and multi-layer solid core balls made their appearance in the mid 1990's.  The oversized driver was introduced in the mid-80's.  So not sure how you came to your conclusion that these other developments resulted in the belly putter. 
 

 

Facts are stubborn things.

Again, woods have been chambered, had metal inserts and sole plates, and been made of laminates for decades. As for other materials, aluminum wears out in months, wood wears at the sole quickly without protection, and titanium is too expensive.

They could still make clubs out of solid carbon fiber, probably no heavier than right now. They'd probably feel and sound crappy, but they would work.

As for the proposed changes, they wouldn't make a lick of difference as to how the pros play. A few players may be hurt by it, but the others will adapt and play similar golf unless you really hamstring the ball. It would then make long hitters the only ones able to reach the greens at courses like Bethpage, where the shorter players would hit driver, wood to reach, thus playing for bogey.

Not all of us are 20 years old.  The timeframes you mentioned above ARE modern to me. 

Back in the day, golf clubs were not hollow.  Face inserts and sole plates did not impart spring face effects like hollow clubs.  You had to compress the ball.  Yonex was the first popular brand solid wood that was not made of wood but graphite.  That was light, strong, and enabled larger heads than wood without the weight.  I know, I had one back in the day and loved it. 

Put a length limit on putters and be done with it.  There are length limits on drivers, so why not putters.  Putters already have a limit on shaft angle coming out of the head.  You cannot have a shaft come straight up out of a putter head like a croquet malot.  Why not???  Why have any limits at all?  Have you seen the size and shape of putter heads lately?  Unbelievable.  If a guy can swing a driver with a head on it the size of a Volkswagen (old guys like me remember when Volkswagens were round) then why not let him swing it?  Based on much of what I have read, why have any limits at all?  If no one has any limits, then it should be fair across the board.

Yall have swung me to the other side.  I think there should be no limits.  The object is to start at point A and get a ball, any ball, into the hole with whatever implement a person can swing, swat, anchor, etc.  There should be no limits on its size, length, shape, shaft angle, or manner in which you stand or swing.  As long as it is the same for all players, then leave it wide open.  I am now a self-proclaimed techno nerd. 

The issue wasn't inserts or base plates, but to avoid taking a current hollow titanium driver and putting expanding foam in it and calling it solid.  Hence the "outer shell, inner body" part of the post.  It doesn't matter now, I'm drinking the "there should be absolutely no limits" kool-aid.  Mechanical clubs that swing themselves with laser pointers, GPS, laptops on every caddy's shoulder with CAD layouts of the course and green.  Let the pros wear shorts and ride carts too so we're all playing the same game.  Each player should be able to have a team of caddies and one of them should be able to watch a satelite TV to know what the other players are doing.  Wide open is wide open and I'm on board.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding 

Again, woods have been chambered, had metal inserts and sole plates, and been made of laminates for decades. As for other materials, aluminum wears out in months, wood wears at the sole quickly without protection, and titanium is too expensive.

 

They could still make clubs out of solid carbon fiber, probably no heavier than right now. They'd probably feel and sound crappy, but they would work.

 

As for the proposed changes, they wouldn't make a lick of difference as to how the pros play. A few players may be hurt by it, but the others will adapt and play similar golf unless you really hamstring the ball. It would then make long hitters the only ones able to reach the greens at courses like Bethpage, where the shorter players would hit driver, wood to reach, thus playing for bogey.

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.

How many people who think there should be one game and one set of rules and the professionals and amateurs using the same equipment themselves use GPS?  The pros can't use GPS, so why is there a different set of rules for that technology?  Lets open this thing up and get it all out there on the course.

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!.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

The issue wasn't inserts or base plates, but to avoid taking a current hollow titanium driver and putting expanding foam in it and calling it solid.  Hence the "outer shell, inner body" part of the post.  It doesn't matter now, I'm drinking the "there should be absolutely no limits" kool-aid.  Mechanical clubs that swing themselves with laser pointers, GPS, laptops on every caddy's shoulder with CAD layouts of the course and green.  Let the pros wear shorts and ride carts too so we're all playing the same game.  Each player should be able to have a team of caddies and one of them should be able to watch a satelite TV to know what the other players are doing.  Wide open is wide open and I'm on board.

If you can point to anyone arguing that there should be no equipment rules, please do so.

Otherwise, why don't you try giving a real argument. What is magic about the equipment that happened to be modern when you were starting out that makes it the gold (or persimmon) standard for "traditional" equipment? What's special about your generation, such that your technology was an acceptable advance over your father's, but your son's is taking it too far?

Douglas Adams said it well: "Anything invented before your fifteenth birthday is the order of nature. That's how it should be. Anything invented between your 15th and 35th birthday is new and exciting, and you might get a career there. Anything invented after that day, however, is against nature and should be prohibited."

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

How many people who think there should be one game and one set of rules and the professionals and amateurs using the same equipment themselves use GPS?  The pros can't use GPS, so why is there a different set of rules for that technology?  Lets open this thing up and get it all out there on the course.

There is no difference in the rules here. Any committee is free to use the condition of competition (or perhaps local rule, I've forgotten the terminology) that permits distance measuring devices during the competition. It just happens that the PGA Tour events opt not to do this.

Are you going to complain about all the other local rules next?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

I'm afraid a post of mine started this debate.

This thread perhaps, but no, not the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

The issue wasn't inserts or base plates, but to avoid taking a current hollow titanium driver and putting expanding foam in it and calling it solid.  Hence the "outer shell, inner body" part of the post.  It doesn't matter now, I'm drinking the "there should be absolutely no limits" kool-aid.  Mechanical clubs that swing themselves with laser pointers, GPS, laptops on every caddy's shoulder with CAD layouts of the course and green.  Let the pros wear shorts and ride carts too so we're all playing the same game.  Each player should be able to have a team of caddies and one of them should be able to watch a satelite TV to know what the other players are doing.  Wide open is wide open and I'm on board.

 

If you can point to anyone arguing that there should be no equipment rules, please do so.

 

Otherwise, why don't you try giving a real argument. What is magic about the equipment that happened to be modern when you were starting out that makes it the gold (or persimmon) standard for "traditional" equipment? What's special about your generation, such that your technology was an acceptable advance over your father's, but your son's is taking it too far?

 

Douglas Adams said it well: "Anything invented before your fifteenth birthday is the order of nature. That's how it should be. Anything invented between your 15th and 35th birthday is new and exciting, and you might get a career there. Anything invented after that day, however, is against nature and should be prohibited."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BugDude 

How many people who think there should be one game and one set of rules and the professionals and amateurs using the same equipment themselves use GPS?  The pros can't use GPS, so why is there a different set of rules for that technology?  Lets open this thing up and get it all out there on the course.

There is no difference in the rules here. Any committee is free to use the condition of competition (or perhaps local rule, I've forgotten the terminology) that permits distance measuring devices during the competition. It just happens that the PGA Tour events opt not to do this.

 

Are you going to complain about all the other local rules next?

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.