I no longer belong to a club, just two groups of golf buddies who love to play everywhere we can anytime we can. But I have had memberships at two. The first was very plush. Everybody who was anybody belonged there, don't you know. Not like that other club across town where "Aren't they mostly just salesmen"? It was almost impossible to break in there unless your grandparents were members. But I learned to play there and had great lessons from a pro's pro...The thin, tan, squinty-eyed cigarette-smoking guy you just knew was a pro. He turned a slicer into a guy who fought a hook for years.
Years later, I joined an old, kind of run-down club. It was very historic and had some great pro golfers associated with it in their formative years. Dues were cheap. Members were oilmen, small business guys, lawyers, carpenters, plumbers, bankers, mechanics, retired policemen, clerks and outlaws...You name it. But it never mattered what you did for a living or who you were on the course or in the 19th hole. They had 3 or 4 money games each week. You put up your money and you played. There were team scores, individual scores, points for everything under the sun. You learned to get the ball in the hole anyway you could. And you got good fast or you found yourself out a lot (well, it seemed like a lot) of cash. Certainly, the payouts were pretty good when you won. Unfortunately, the course has gone the way of real estate development and is no more.
Guess which one I miss most? Regards to all, -Marv
That's dumb. If you are "developing your swing" it's made better by the right amount of feedback. And > 1/2 of the time, the "feedback" doesn't even really include what the ball does. The ball flight takes care of itself.
It is. Significantly so. From 140 yards, the gap in fairway vs. rough is a fifth of a shot. From 160, a quarter of a shot.
There you go again putting words in my mouth, or (willfully?) mis-remembering stuff.
I've pointed out the opposite many times: that the advances in equipment have narrowed the gap between players like Tiger and his peers. You couldn't mis-hit a muscleback 2-iron. You can mis-hit a 3-hybrid a little and still do okay. The gap in skill has been artificially reduced. Jack says it. Tiger says it. I've said it.
Of course the modern ball is the "best" BALL "ever." But I've never said it's the best thing for the game, or makes the game most interesting, or whatever you're actually trying to say.
0 for 2 there @Jack Watson. Sorry.
Yet… you were wrong.
They didn't. They hit down. They launched the ball too low, and with too much spin.
The bottom line is very simple. If you are developing your swing or a students is it made better by more or less feedback? I recommend anyone developing to use the highest spin balls they can find because it gives more feedback.
Higher spinning ball is more feedback. Tour players today would hit straighter with a ball just like a Pinnacle. Rocks were available back in the day. No spin isn't what pros want in a ball. They don't choose no spin because of many reasons.
Often players now aim at rough because it's often not what anyone would call rough. I think it's obvious that I was not making a statistical argument there just pointing out a tendency in the modern game that shows how course setup is weak/favors bomb and gouge brainless golf. Rough is supposed to be harder to hit from than fairway. That's also lost on modern gamers for the most part.
Joro will agree, he was there. A higher spin ball helps separate wheat from chaff. So many pros agree on these points...You seem to be somewhat alone in your contention that modern golf is the best thing ever...
Anyways I have to go so no more time now for this... I used caps because it's insulting to people to tell them they didn't know what they were doing.
Again Best wishes to all for a safe holiday!
You can't go back to that, because pros could simply play a 1997 Pinnacle and hit it long and straight. The only thing about the new ball is that they made the 1997 Pinnacle spin more with shorter clubs. So wrap a 1997 Pinnacle in some softer outer layers, and bam, you've accomplished nothing.
Balls are better now. So are clubs. So is the understanding that pros have to how important power is in the game.
No, it's correct. When players first got launch monitors, the vast majority were hitting down too much, generating too much spin, and effectively hitting ballooning, rising shots.
The Frank Nobilo piece, for example, says:
So no, it's not arrogant or incorrect. It's perfectly valid.
Nobody said anything about gear effect.
Yell about it then.
Sorry, no. You're simply and provably wrong here.
Where do you come up with this bullshit?
The rest I've left alone as it's your opinion and that's fine, but don't just spout out shit like it's fact when it's not, please.
I know for myself as a golf fan I want to be able to watch golf and have it entertain me. There's really only three tournaments anymore I pay attention to Masters British and US Open. The last couple years the US has been a dud but I keep watching hoping it will once again become the ultimate test.
I want to see the best quality golf. I think that's where this whole discussion of distance comes in. Nicklaus Snead et all for the most part could swing much faster than they did. Sometimes they would bash one but not usually. Hogan did some long drive stuff at times early on and he was puttin the wood to it espescially for his height. In order to score best these guys played a golf swing that was not maxed out because the ball spun so much that slight misfits were truly bad you had to manage the strike just right at high speed to keep spin down and get the launch right or it would be an embarrassing balloon ballflight. They were playing the game of skill not the game of maximum speed alone. Very self disciplined approach. It kinda makes me mad when I hear younger folks say "part of the reason for the distance now is that players understand launch conditions better"
Really? To me it's preposterous to try to assert that modern players only in the last few years learned launch conditions. It's also arrogant and incorrect. Like gear effect also. Heel low cuts and toe draws were shots people practiced with balata back to Jackie Burke!
THE BALATA PLAYERS WERE MASTERS OF SPIN COMPARED TO THE GUYS NOW! TO SAY THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING IS ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY INSULTING TO THEM AND ANYONE WHO IS CONNECTED WITH THEM!
They were masters because the higher spinning ball gave them much better feedback while developing their swings. You have to know how to create certain launch conditions to get that balata out there like Norman or Nicklaus or whoever. Maybe they did not know their numbers on Doppler but they ALL knew who could do it and who couldn't and more I,portent how THEY did it.
Now they are all bashing it because there's no reason not to. The ball doesn't spin as much and the clubs are forgiving. The courses are setup so that being in the 'rough' is better than the fairway.
You get brain dead robots like DJ out there hitting miles. Where's the variation and challenge? Where are the courses made to challenge the modern technology? It's not good for the tour to make the game into a distance contest. They are marketing the thing poorly and results have been showing and will show the next few years as more and more courses close.
Golf with a higher spinning ball would be so cool to even watch on tv with shot tracer. That's what golfers used to aspire to the low launch and correct shape. They might not hit as far as pros but the shaping that's what's been totally lost today.
I think with a game focused on power and distance over self control and skill you get a bore. With most tour stops it's like watching a Ferrari F1 car racing a guy in a Prius. (The Prius being the course.)
A golfer with the skill of Corey Pavin simply couldn't make it today and that's sad. Guy was a great competitor striker of the ball. He was shaping fw wood shots into greens. You don't see that stuff anymore and really the younger crowd doesn't know what they don't know.
To me the whole game of golf boils down to decisions and self knowledge and control and is made more interesting the more difficult the course gets. With the modern week to week game with older courses and modern clubs it's basically a free minus six or more every week due to par fives alone for a good touring pro.
This is a long rant to forgive me. I just wish golf were more entertaining now. It's largely not. I'd like to see the pros have to face the challenge of a higher spinning ball and takeaway Some for and max volume on drivers and fw clubs. The reason for this is I want to see what kind of level mankind can reach in this game. I want to see the best quality. IMO the way the game is goin is wrong for that. It's a putting contest now. They all bash it they all hit greens it's just who gets a hot putter.
I wanna make it more challenging and truly separate the wheat from the chaff. To me that would be more interesting.
Or we can just leave things as they are and really never know what a great golfer is truly capable of because the game now really doesn't require that skill anymore. Heck just carry a driver some short irons and wedges and a putter.
Sorry for the rant but many of us get angry when it's said that modern players have been taught new things by trackman. Sorry guys, equal some Nicklaus or Hogan or Knudson et all scores with balata then you can talk. That's real feedback hit ball watch ball. Ball no do what you want do something else!