Ernie talks new technology and how it helps

I think I liked golf better back in the mid 90's.  Probably a bit hypocritical of me since I fully take advantage of modern technology (460cc driver and hybrids).  I remember a 250 yard drive with my old Taylor Made Mid-Size was a nice poke.  It seems technology is robbing the game of some of it's soul.

I would die without my hybrids lol :)

It definitely helps me because I could never hit fairway woods to save my life lol

I think technology has helped, but at the same time they have made changes to make it harder for the Pros. Just like the groove changes they recently made. The Pros are going to do well no matter what. I Think the Tech helps the regular guys like us more than anyone.

The reality is that many advertising and sponsorship dollars would be lost if people where not tempted to buy the newest and greatest in golf technology.  Sure it has has made the game easier for some, but it is still very challenging- heck, technology didn`t prevent two pros from halving the first playoff hole with doubles on Sunday, so skill must still play some part.

Technology has improved as much in golf as it has in every sport. Bigger, lighter, stronger, tougher, more protective, better. So has the way we train athletes. Very few athletes of past eras would be able to compete at such a high level of today. Every sport has exceptions of course, Jack Nicklaus, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, OJ Simpson (his personal life has no bearing on his talent for the game), Pete Rose, Nolan Ryan, Pele, etc etc. Those men had the talent and would work relentlessly to win. BVut on the average, todays athletes are light years ahead of those of the past.

I'm ready for my new 600cc driver to be delivered...

This way I can slice even further away from the hole!

I am not sure I necessarily I agree with his statement about players not being able to compete 20 years ago.  Technology has improved but the improvements are available to everyone equally.  Do people really think that technology could help the lower tiered players increase so dramatically without also helping the higher tiered as well?  I suppose it is possible but I do find it highly unlikely.  I feel his statement is more in line with the cliche "back in the day it was a lot harder" type comment.

He's actually saying it's a lot harder to win today. He's saying Greg Norman wouldn't have won as much today, because the modern drivers make it easier to drive like Greg Norman. Many other pros have said the same thing, notably Jack Nicklaus about 15 years ago --- modern technology serves as an equalizer, so it's harder for the best golfers to separate themselves from the pack. What he's implying is that guys like him would have won a lot more often if there had been a technology freeze in 1990.

I am not sure I agree with your post.  I think he is definitely saying that equipment has marginalized the advantages certain players, like Greg Norman, had in the past and made the playing field much more equal.  Having the playing field much closer together in certain categories (that equipment has assisted) would make it much more difficult to win.

Seems Els is claiming technology has neutralized specific advantages that guys like Norman (driver) and Seve (wedges) had in the past.  I guess I can see his point that technology has made it easier to hit it long and straight with a driver or possible to hit amazing wedge shots but we could go back in time before Norman and Seve's days and say the same thing.

To the average golfer I don't think technology has much of an impact since I've seen a few mentions on here that the average non-pro handicap isn't much different than it was 20 years ago.  For pro's there's still a disparity between them on driving distances, fairways hot and up and downs.  I'm not sure how Els comments apply other than to say that technology has advanced the game but overall the golfers have had to adjust to the new challenges (longer, tougher courses, groove changes) it presents.

If he's claiming Seve or Norman would dominate today' I'd disagree, but maybe some of the pro's today wouldn't do quite as well if they were sent 20 - 30 years back in time and forced to play the equipment from that time.  I'd guess some would miss not having hybrids and having to hit a 2i & 3i instead.

I think golf was harder 20+ years ago.   And Els is right in saying that " I look around now and see guys winning, guys who could never have done so 20 years ago."   He's not saying anything about guys from 20+ years ago not being able to win as much today, he's saying some players that win now couldn't have done it 20+ years ago.   The inverse might be true, but he's not saying that.

Can you imagine Bubba Watson jumping out of his shoes while swinging an old driver, whether persimmon or the first metal drivers.  He get's wild now and he would be a disaster playing with older equipment unless he changed his swing.

Equipment has changed the game too much too fast.  Hybrids, belly putters, big head drivers, etc.  have made the game easier for golfers now a days.  They've lengthened courses and changed things like adding more bunkers or whatever, but that only negates the equipment a little bit.  Maybe regular golfers should be able to use the newer equipment but not the pros.  But if that happened there wouldn't be as many sales of new equipment.  A lot of golfers like playing with the same stuff the pros use.

I disagree completely with anyone who says that modern athletes are better than past generations of athletes.  Especially in golf.  There's more good pros but that's primarily because there's a lot more people in the world now.  The top ten to fifteen golfers from past generations would still rank in the top 30 or so of golfers playing now.  Golfers from the past could hit the ball every bit as far as golfers now.  Nicklaus and Palmer could drive it over 300 yards.  Sam Snead and Hogan too.  You can go back to Harry Vardon who could hit his longest drives 280 yards or his buddy Ted Ray who could hit it over 300 yards with hickory shafted clubs and the inferior balls they used back then.  But they had to play a game of control with the ball so they didn't let it all out that often.  And they were much better at shaping shots than modern golfers.

I thought sports like football and boxing were better back in the 1980's.   Lineman were smaller than now, in the 270-280 lb. range, but they used a lot more athletic moves than the big guys do now.  Heavyweight boxers back then were more around 210-220 lbs. and they used to dance, bob, weave and move around a lot compared to the boxers now.  I think it was more entertaining.  Maybe it's just what you grow up with.  Steroids ruined baseball in the 90's with all of the home runs that were hit.  Now it's more back to normal compared to the 1980's and before.  Baseballs equipment hasn't changed except for the bigger gloves they use now.  Baseball stayed more true to the old days with the wooden bats and balls they use now as compared to the way golf has exploded out of control with the equipment that's come out the past 15 years or so.

I'm kind of amazed that anyone could say that. It might not be as obvious in golf, but there's a debate about whether golfers are athletes. But for athletes in general, it's obvious. Performances that would result in a world record or an Olympic gold medal a couple generations ago would not win a Division I college meet in track or swimming today. The Lombardi-era Packers would be demolished by a top 5 college team today. My favorite example goes back so far that you have to be kind of old (like me) to remember him, but they used to show a lot of Tarzan movies on TV, and the star was Johnny Weissmuller, who was the greatest swimmer of all time in his prime. He held something like 70 world records, and literally never lost a match. And there was a junior high school girl who beat his world record time when trying out for the Olympics a few years ago.

I like what Ernie had to say and agree with him 100%. I started playing in 1975 and I absolutely agree that the game and ball striking was more difficult back then but in general golf courses were much shorter. That's a big reason why for both the Pro's and the average golfer scores have not improved much over the last 30 years. I was always a pretty good driver of the golf ball back when I was a 1 handicap in the 1980's. I averaged around 250 yards with persimmon woods and balata balls and was usually 30-40 yards ahead of the average golfer. I was in outstanding shape in my mid 20's and my swing in my opinion was much better than it is now at 47 years old. Today I still run and work out but I don't have the flexibility I had in my youth and I average 30 yards more on my tee shots,lol. From what I've experienced there is no doubt that the modern driver has changed the game and forced courses to add length to keep up.

The ball itself has played a huge roll in all of this as well. I'm truely amazed at the engineering that must go into a golf ball these days. How they are able to design a ball that can have less spin off a driver and still spin around the greens and not have all the side-spin the old balls had is incredible. Back when I started and through my high school years you really only had a couple choices in balls. You could either play a surlyn cover rock that would fly a little farther, not have as much side spin and not spin at all around the greens, or you could play a wound balata that would play shorter, spin like crazy around the greens, and slice 50 yards when you miss hit it.  The surlyn covered wound balls were basically a little of both of the other two balls and probably the most ideal for the 2-10 handicap players. I think it was around 1980 when the first Top-Flight Tour Edition ball came out and you knew right from the first time playing with it that there was something really different about it. It gave you some of the distance and durability that a surlyn ball could but it could still spin very well around the greens like a wound balata. Most people claim the ProV1 was where the game started to change but I believe the Top-Flight Tour Edition in the early 1980's was the real pioneer of todays modern golf ball.

As far as the Pro's of today versus those of 20-40 years ago? I think the Pro's of today would have a much, much harder and longer adjustment to the old equipment (circa 1960-1980) than their counterparts would if handed a 460cc Driver and a ProV1. The game has changed in many ways since my youth but I believe it's the increase in course yardage that has been the equalizer to hold scores down for both Pro's and Amatuers. Either way, golf is still a very hard game and a lot of fun to play and personally I prefer the modern equipment but I just hope the USGA/RA doesn't allow the clubs/balls to go any further than they do now!

Of all the improvements and changes in golf the Belly Putter is the least intrusive to me. The reason I believe that is because putting is so individual and for myself I've tried them and putt beyond horrible. For others they are the answer to all their putting woes and I look at them as more or less a different technique to putting. If belly putters were really magic like some claim then everyone would buy one and standard putters would go into extinction. I just don't see that happening. I don't like the idea of somebody anchoring a club to their body anymore than the next guy but I just don't believe they turn a bad putter into a great putter. There's no doubt it's allowed some guy's on tour to hang in there a little longer but many of these younger guy's have had the belly putter in their bag from the day they turned pro so they've learned to become good putters with it before they made it big. It will be interesting to see what the results are of the USGA's current testing going on with the belly putter!

Well, I use to think technology didn't make too noticeable a difference, since average scores/handicaps haven't changed much (if at all) over the past few decades -- you know, "It's the indian, not the arrow" thinking. I am, however, having my doubts.

I coach a HS girls golf team, and while practicing at the range with them recently, I hit one of the player's Taylormade (TM) Burner (white) driver and 5 wood. She plays mens' clubs, just with regular shafts that have been cut down an inch.

I'd gone through a small bucket myself prior to the girls arriving at the range, so I was warmed up. I hit my own clubs fine, especially my driver -- which I can seem to easily do on the range, just not on the course. But that's a whole other subject.

I started with her Burner 5 wood. I struck 7 balls, hitting the first slightly left, then five in a row dead straight, with the last being a slight fade. What I found odd from the experience was the feedback. On the five hit straight, I could definitely feel a sensation the club face was self-correcting -- I never felt I put a great swing on any of those five, but the results were far better, and easier to accomplish, than with my current woods (which are older technology). The bottom line -- it seemed, overall, the results were disproportionate to the quality, speed and face contact of the swing. Even a below average swing created above average results.

I hit the TM Burner driver (10.5º) as well, and experienced the same results. I really don't like the look of the thing -- kind of cone shaped -- but the ball jumped off the club, and the right to left deviation was minimal. Again, I could feel a self-correcting effect.

With my driver (Callaway Diablo Tour 9º, std length stiff shaft) that I hit well earlier, the feedback equalled the results. I could feel when I pulled it, pushed it, faded it and just plain didn't catch it on the hot part of the face -- the feedback and results were consistent with the swing and contact.

Even though it wasn't at all a "scientific test," not accounting for all the variables involved -- changes in shaft flex, twist, torque; possible changes in my swing to accommodate shorter shaft; etc, etc -- there was a substantial difference in the relation of swing quality/face contact to overall results. I have not felt that great of an impact from a change in clubs before. I definitely know why so many pros play the TM line. Apparently, they're just easier to produce quality shots with.

Now that doesn't mean I'm rushing out anytime soon to buy TM anything. This fool and his money don't part company often, and I know if I buy anything new, actual results will not meet the high expectations, and I'll be ticked I made the purchase. And, like with all other drivers I've swung over the past several years, I'd hook it off the tee anyway -- and that is the indian, not the arrow.