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.