Euro Tour

[birly-shirly]

Lots to agree with there - and I think I've got as much admiration for the players of the steel and persimmon era as anyone. Or just about

However, I think that there are differences between tour players' and everyone else's experience in the transition to modern equipment.

Take the issue of balls. Yes - the old ball wasn't durable - but how often did that become a real issue for old time tour players? They could change ball every 2 holes if they wanted. Also, there were problems with consistency - but very often the stories you hear are of players contracted to play a ball from an equipment company that didn't really have leading expertise in ball-making. Both Hogan's and Jack's problems would have been less acute if they hadn't endorsed Macgregor equipment - there were certainly better balls out there at the time.

Also, on clubs - I think oversize drivers are hugely more forgiving for the average player. But what strikes me when you look at smash-factor stats on tour is how little variation there is. That suggests to me that these guys are swinging longer clubs faster than ever and they're still basically middling it. So how much forgiveness is really needed at the tour level - and how much is just putting the latest and greatest in the shop window?

The distance thing is interesting - but I really think that a key factor is the amount of information that's around nowadays. Everyone knows what "tour" clubhead speed means, and it's possible to measure non-tour speeds at the range. I also think that the information available on the "power generation" bit of the swing is a bit more advanced, and a bit more accessible, than the science of accuracy or consistency. Lastly, driver and ball fitting is available now too to ordinary players and not just the very few on elite staff contracts.

Actually, despite how this sounds, there's a bit of me that would be very happy to see the golf ball and clubhead size reigned back in. My main bone of contention with Dariusz is that I think modern players, if they knew that this was what they were going to be playing with, would adapt just fine. Calling modern pros hackers or whackers is, IMOP, just wishful thinking and delusion. By the same token, I have no difficulty in believing that Hogan, Nelson, Cotton or Snead could have found themselves in the 21st century and distinguished themselves in the bomb'n'gouge era.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Isn't a 4th explanation that the vast majority of posters now realise that Dariusz is so entrenched in his views that there is no point, value or even entertainment in trying to debate the point?

Stop portraying me here as an idiot or freak, OK ?
The truth is that vast majority of contemporary people (which is visible on this forum very well with people like you) are resistant for knowledge. They do not believe eye-witnesses of Hogan era; they do not believe what Hogan's playing partners said that e.g. "every time I'd play with him [Ben Hogan], I could play pretty well—I felt like I was a caddie. I felt like I shouldn't even be out there. He played that much better than anybody else, in my mind, in my estimation, of the players that I ever saw play the game."
Now when still living legends like Trevino say something - they do not believe also. Even when a current tour player says that he admires ballstriking of the greats from the past and he is nowhere near that league - they do not believe it as well.
Why it is so tough for some of you to understand that if a tour player put himself in such a position comparing to Hogan or few other greatest ballstrikers it means he is frank and admits the truth. He does not need to kiss Hogan's ass expecting something in exchange. Hogan's dead. He puts himself in a very embarassing situation (as a tour winner) saying that he's happy to score 80 with old clubs only because he putted phenomenally. If someone puts himself on a very low pedestal it usually means he is telling the truth.

You people can only laugh and ridicule others and their arguments, no matter how serious they are.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Sorry Dariusz - but I don't think I called you an idiot or a freak. I said you hold entrenched views. Do you disagree?

The truth is, I have learnt little or nothing from you as regards Hogan's playing ability. All the apocryphal stories that you wheel out as evidence, I have heard or read elsewhere - although sometimes in a more moderately stated, more credible, form.

And before you reply, I already appreciate that you've learned nothing from me, irrespective of any effort I've made to look at the issue in any sort of historical or comparative context. So you can save yourself the trouble of that modest boast.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Sorry Dariusz - but I don't think I called you an idiot or a freak. I said you hold entrenched views. Do you disagree?

The truth is, I have learnt little or nothing from you as regards Hogan's playing ability. All the apocryphal stories that you wheel out as evidence, I have heard or read elsewhere - although sometimes in a more moderately stated, more credible, form.

And before you reply, I already appreciate that you've learned nothing from me, irrespective of any effort I've made to look at the issue in any sort of historical or comparative context. So you can save yourself the trouble of that modest boast.

Don't learn from me, learn from what tour players like Snedeker said, say, and will say for Christ sake ! They regard themselves hackers comparing to legendary ballstrikers !

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Fair enough. "legendary" being the key word.

If you think that Snedeker being handed a set of unfamiliar, unfitted clubs and going out to play a round is "proof" of his scoring ability with classic equipment, then that says everything about the rigor of your argument.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Fair enough. "legendary" being the key word.

If you think that Snedeker being handed a set of unfamiliar, unfitted clubs and going out to play a round is "proof" of his scoring ability with classic equipment, then that says everything about the rigor of your argument.

Have you read the article ? Have you understood well the content of the article ? Snedeker used just clubs from the 80-ies and almost scored around 90 or more if not his putting, as he admitted himself clearily. Not blades from Hogan era when the sweetspot was smaller than a pinhead and persimmon driver with a head smaller than your hybrid head !

BTW, if you think that a current tour player cannot score well with a random golf set you give me another strong arguments against their highly overestimated abilities. They would beat you with an umbrella, as they say, yes ? ROFL.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Sorry Dariusz - but technically, aren't ALL sweetspots - ancient and modern - smaller than a pinhead?

Yes I read the article thanks. A few years ago, when it was news.

Who cares if Snedeker used equipment from the 80s instead of the '50s? What's the difference? We've had this argument before, and you've learned nothing. What makes a steel-shafted persimmon driver from the '80s more forgiving than one from the '50s? As a matter of fact, when persimmon was still being played on tour, a good number of guys WERE PLAYING woods from the '50s.

Likewise blades. I actually own and regularly play sets of blades from the 80s, and the 60s - so I'm in a position to make comparisons. Are you? Lofts have changed compared to modern blades, as have sole profiles. Harder to find the sweetspot? I don't think so.

A perfect example of why I said this argument with you is futile.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Sorry Dariusz - but technically, aren't ALL sweetspots - ancient and modern - smaller than a pinhead?

Yes I read the article thanks. A few years ago, when it was news.

Who cares if Snedeker used equipment from the 80s instead of the '50s? What's the difference? We've had this argument before, and you've learned nothing. What makes a steel-shafted persimmon driver from the '80s more forgiving than one from the '50s? As a matter of fact, when persimmon was still being played on tour, a good number of guys WERE PLAYING woods from the '50s.

Likewise blades. I actually own and regularly play sets of blades from the 80s, and the 60s - so I'm in a position to make comparisons. Are you? Lofts have changed compared to modern blades, as have sole profiles. Harder to find the sweetspot? I don't think so.

A perfect example of why I said this argument with you is futile.

Ahhh...so there was no technical progress between the 50-ies and the 80-ies ?
I have now a set of McGregor blades from the 60-ies and comparing to my blades (stylized for classic ones) and I can see more differences than just loft. Moreover, the forgiveness of heads enlarge sweetspot area, saying colloquially, and the idea is not to lose much with slightly off-center hits. That's why e.g. hitting a driver is a child's game now comparing to yesteryear. Didn't you know it ?

The arguments with people like you are futile. Read your last posts carefully several times and perhaps you will know why.

I have enough of this silly discussion. Believe what you wish, I do not care.

Cheers

 

[BrendanC]

Comparing Snedeker to Hogan is like putting Joe Schmoe The Soccer Pro alongside Pele and saying 'aha, gotcha'!

Ridiculous.

Put Darren Clarke out there and see what happens with blades.

SOME players who make a living on the Tour now might struggle to play old style gear - particularly those who are poor drivers of the golf ball. Players who are currently on the Nationwide Tour or below might suddenly prosper.

Equipment changes will always result in a re-ordering of the field to some extent.

Golf is still swinging a club to hit a ball. The courses are absurdly long - and by the way, regardless of loft or the number on the sole of the club, distance in and of itself has a bigger impact on scoring.

This talk of a pinhead size sweetspot is also nonsense - check Richie 3Jack's blog for Tom Wishon's thoughts.

It would be truly remarkable if players in every single sport had gotten better - higher, stronger, faster, more precise etc etc - while golf had gone backwards. Even skill games like darts and snooker have seen vast improvements in scoring e.g. 147s and nine dart finishes (yes, equipment has changed in these sports also).

The competition has gotten keener, and the fields have gotten MUCH deeper than they were in the late 40s and 50s.

For a period, Hogan found a way to improve so that he was much than his peers. He has a Muhammad Ali-like status within the sport and rightly so.

What he trained himself to do fitted the era perfectly - not least the shift away from matchplay and towards 'shooting a number' four days in a row. How many great 'hickory' swings were messed up by the shift to steel?

It is an extraordinary claim, and therefore one requiring extraordinary proof - not just random anecdotes and quotes from the habitually hyperbolic BS-merchant Lee Trevino (who I like) - that Hogan and his peers are better than today's golf professionals to the extent you claim.

There are no stats (I happen to think Hogan's poor putting is exaggerated who can't explain the fact that his scoring was not on a par with his fans' estimation of his ballstriking).

It should be pointed out that Snedeker was playing in 15-25mph winds "against" himself, using his modern equipment at the same time as the old stuff. The "test" is complete rubbish.

Clubs from the '80s bring round in 80s for Snedeker - USATODAY.com

 

[birly-shirly]

Ahhh...so there was no technical progress between the 50-ies and the 80-ies ?
I have now a set of McGregor blades from the 60-ies and comparing to my blades (stylized for classic ones) and I can see more differences than just loft. Moreover, the forgiveness of heads enlarge sweetspot area, saying colloquially, and the idea is not to lose much with slightly off-center hits. That's why e.g. hitting a driver is a child's game now comparing to yesteryear. Didn't you know it ?

The arguments with people like you are futile. Read your last posts carefully several times and perhaps you will know why.

I have enough of this silly discussion. Believe what you wish, I do not care.

Cheers

Yes - I can see where the futility comes from. I ask you a question - and you duck it completely. Then you selectively misquote me.

Technical progress from 50s to 80s? Very little in my view. Quality control perhaps. Maybe fitting. And there would have been some experiments with lighter alloy shafts which didn't gain traction with better players. The fundamental technology of steel shafts, forged iron blades and wooden heads hardly changed in that time. That's why people talk about the post-hickory, pre-metal wood era as an ERA. Because there was basic continuity of equipment.

And yes. A child, or an amateur, will have an easier time hitting an oversize driver than a persimmon head. I guess that's why you keep a quiverful of them. My point, which you have ducked, is that the DATA which shows how consistently today's pros make contact with the driver suggests that they benefit LESS from driver head forgiveness than you do.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Yes - I can see where the futility comes from. I ask you a question - and you duck it completely. Then you selectively misquote me.

Technical progress from 50s to 80s? Very little in my view. Quality control perhaps. Maybe fitting. And there would have been some experiments with lighter alloy shafts which didn't gain traction with better players. The fundamental technology of steel shafts, forged iron blades and wooden heads hardly changed in that time. That's why people talk about the post-hickory, pre-metal wood era as an ERA. Because there was basic continuity of equipment.

And yes. A child, or an amateur, will have an easier time hitting an oversize driver than a persimmon head. I guess that's why you keep a quiverful of them. My point, which you have ducked, is that the DATA which shows how consistently today's pros make contact with the driver suggests that they benefit LESS from driver head forgiveness than you do.

What questions did I duck ? It was YOU who changed topics and omit to comment my points. Your problem is that you do not believe people -- and I do not mean believe stories from 3rd hand. You (and people like you: see Brendan's post LOL) do not believe even if something is being said by eye-witness tour companion.
Brendan even said he thinks that Hogan's putting was not so bad blah blah. Pathetic. Who cares who he or you or me think if there are opinions of the game's most trustworthy and knowledgeable people ? Trevino now is a mythoman because he said something that you people do not believe. You people juggle facts perfectly to match them to your doubtful reality.
Who cares what wind Snedeker played ? Who cares about Darren Clarke ? Who the hell are they with their mediocre skills comparing to e.g. Trevino and his skills ? Snedeker, at least got my respect because he was not afraid to say the truth.

Now, what driver data ? Today's pros can hit consistently ? Are you joking ? Current no.1 often whacks balls to other fairways. Former no.1 is able to achieve 14 % of FiR in a round. Japanese samurai would commit seppuku from shame.

Cheers

 

[wulsy]

It's all about EVOLUTION. Ask Charles Darwin. Golfers evolve to survive in changing environments. Just like meerkats. Simples.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iBcmJYKbUaw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[BrendanC]

Dariusz,

It is simple: the modern pro uses a better club, to try to hit a target that is farther away and smaller. Many more people are playing the game and information is more widely disseminated so it is hard for a group of Texans from the same town to dominate it.

Also - everybody basically uses the same ball now.

Part of the problem is that playing the Hogan myth game has become a weird meme among golf pros (and wannabes who think talking about a master gives them a sort of reflected glory. Gotta love the internet LOLZ).

I mentioned Clarke because he might well have broken par with the old clubs.

Instead, Snedeker shoots 80 and has a minor breakdown.

And people try to use this joke round to support a serious argument.

Again: LOLZ.

 

[birly-shirly]

Well, I asked you whether you agreed that you held entrenched views? I don't think you answered that one (explicitly)

I also asked what were the changes in equipment design, for blades and wooden drivers, between the '50s and '80s that created more forgiveness. I don't think you answered that either.

You asked me about driver data. Being a decent, reasonable sort of chap, I'll answer your question. Again - since I've already posted this in this thread.

But in a wee bit more detail - look at smash factor figures. For 2011, smash factor varied across the whole tour a whopping 0.034, from a high of 1.485 to a low of 1.451. Median was 1.48. In other words, half the field (the half including your favourite, Furyk) is within 0.3% of each other in terms of their consistent ability to hit it out of the screws.

Don't you think that's quite impressive consistency?

I'm talking about consistency in terms of a middling strike of course. Because that's what clubhead forgiveness relates to. If you want to argue that modern clubs are easier to deliver square, then please explain why. Or maybe those longer shafted, lightweight drivers are actually HARDER to square at impact, which might in part explain low FIR stats, but wouldn't fit with your belief that the game has just been made ridiculously easy by a bunch of rocket scientists for a bunch of pampered hackers.

 

[wulsy]

If the players today had to play with the equipment from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s they would adapt accordingly. It really is that simple.

Does anyone honestly think that people are less capable today than in the past? Does anyone think that making millions is so piss easy that untalented, lazy, know-nothing-about-golf, just-stand-up-and-blast it non-athletes can saunter on to the tour and clean up?

Come on, these guys are good. Those guys were equally good, but the guys on tour these day ain't no clowns. If they were I'd be there.

 

[birly-shirly]

Who cares about Darren Clarke ? Who the hell are they with their mediocre skills comparing to e.g. Trevino and his skills ?

See? Now you're just being an ignorant dick. Really, you ought to know (at least before you pass judgement) that Clarke is the living embodiment of what you should be celebrating. Grew up playing traditional golf in the wind. In his prime, he was a great iron player, and a really solid driver of the ball. MORE THAN CAPABLE of hitting blades, and often did. (Big deal, since most guys out there are the same - although endorsement money will often influence what goes in the bag). Let down by a comparatively poor short game and putting.

If you had any sense, he'd be your hero.

 

[leon]

BORING! Sorry chaps, but this has turned into another massively tedious thread.

Still not as boring as cricket though! (sorry but any game where you have to stop for tea is not a sport)

 

[Kevin Shields]

Birly, while I agree with your argument wholeheartedly, I wonder why you bang your head against a wall. Dariusz may be the only person on the planet that isn't in a padded room that feels this way. It's a futile argument.

Guys like Trevino wouldn't even likely keep their card today because of the style of play. Too short, too low of flight. But that's not his fault, the best do what the game and equipment present to them at their time. If the equipment never changed from the 60s, we'd have a group of top tier players that would rise to the top playing that style.

I still occasionally get this argument in my area that no way someone could be better than Clemente. All you can do is roll your eyes. Can't fight it.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz,

It is simple: the modern pro uses a better club, to try to hit a target that is farther away and smaller. Many more people are playing the game and information is more widely disseminated so it is hard for a group of Texans from the same town to dominate it.

Also - everybody basically uses the same ball now.

Part of the problem is that playing the Hogan myth game has become a weird meme among golf pros (and wannabes who think talking about a master gives them a sort of reflected glory. Gotta love the internet LOLZ).

I mentioned Clarke because he might well have broken par with the old clubs.

Instead, Snedeker shoots 80 and has a minor breakdown.

And people try to use this joke round to support a serious argument.

Again: LOLZ.

You forgot to say: "in my opinion". Why ? Because in my opinion:
- it was not a joke round; this round proves a very important thing -- namely, that one shouldn't exaggerate with praying a tour pro's abilities;
- Clarke could play 98 with old equipment because his putting wouldn't save his ass like in Snedeker's example;
- people should listen to old wisdom and respect it; I was an avid soccer player and if you ask anyone knowledgeable if today there are better players than Pele, Garrincha, Puskas, DiStefano, Cruyff, etc. - they say NO, maybe except Messi or Ronaldo. They will say that soccer game changed and a team with old legends would lose 10:1 with today's players but there is no friggin comparison of individual skills. Capisci ?

It's all about EVOLUTION. Ask Charles Darwin. Golfers evolve to survive in changing environments. Just like meerkats. Simples.

But of course. Today's players are lesser ballstrikers because ballstriking does not mean much. They are far better athletes and focus on things they would need, e.g. distance. But still, some group of deliusional people argue that today's players are not worse ballstrikers or even better, because e.g. a better athlete must be equal to better ballstriker. Geeez. See my soccer comparison as well.

Well, I asked you whether you agreed that you held entrenched views? I don't think you answered that one (explicitly)

I also asked what were the changes in equipment design, for blades and wooden drivers, between the '50s and '80s that created more forgiveness. I don't think you answered that either.

You asked me about driver data. Being a decent, reasonable sort of chap, I'll answer your question. Again - since I've already posted this in this thread.

But in a wee bit more detail - look at smash factor figures. For 2011, smash factor varied across the whole tour a whopping 0.034, from a high of 1.485 to a low of 1.451. Median was 1.48. In other words, half the field (the half including your favourite, Furyk) is within 0.3% of each other in terms of their consistent ability to hit it out of the screws.

Don't you think that's quite impressive consistency?

I'm talking about consistency in terms of a middling strike of course. Because that's what clubhead forgiveness relates to. If you want to argue that modern clubs are easier to deliver square, then please explain why. Or maybe those longer shafted, lightweight drivers are actually HARDER to square at impact, which might in part explain low FIR stats, but wouldn't fit with your belief that the game has just been made ridiculously easy by a bunch of rocket scientists for a bunch of pampered hackers.

Of course modern clubs are easier to square. Ever heard of e-MOI thing ? Not mentioning everyone of these tour hackers have a bunch of service fitters who work day nad night to deliver the best personnalized clubs. And they still suck with the driver.
And what means the stats of smash factor if an user cannot swing properly and whack balls all over the place ? He can have 1.50 and it does not mean much. It means that he can find sweetspot very often but his swing mechanics sucks in a far more impressive thing than smash factor. Yesteryear a 1.45 shot onto the fairway would mean a birdie or par -- while a 1.50 one into the rough would mean bogey or double. What is more important then ? Unless people play a golf-like discipline where accuracy of teeshot means nothing.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

See? Now you're just being an ignorant dick. Really, you ought to know (at least before you pass judgement) that Clarke is the living embodiment of what you should be celebrating. Grew up playing traditional golf in the wind. In his prime, he was a great iron player, and a really solid driver of the ball. MORE THAN CAPABLE of hitting blades, and often did. (Big deal, since most guys out there are the same - although endorsement money will often influence what goes in the bag). Let down by a comparatively poor short game and putting.

If you had any sense, he'd be your hero.

I do not know everyone player's history. Clarke is not mentioned in the league of great ballstrikers as e.g. Trevino is.
That's not a reason enough to call someone a dick. I am finished with you now.

Birly, while I agree with your argument wholeheartedly, I wonder why you bang your head against a wall. Dariusz may be the only person on the planet that isn't in a padded room that feels this way. It's a futile argument.

Guys like Trevino wouldn't even likely keep their card today because of the style of play. Too short, too low of flight. But that's not his fault, the best do what the game and equipment present to them at their time. If the equipment never changed from the 60s, we'd have a group of top tier players that would rise to the top playing that style.

I still occasionally get this argument in my area that no way someone could be better than Clemente. All you can do is roll your eyes. Can't fight it.

Who argued that Trevino would keep the card today ? Have you problems with understanding ? I argued, argue and will argue that such Trevinos were FAR BETTER BALLSTRIKERS than today's players. Using my soccer analogy - he would show consistency unattainable for today's players. It does not mean he would win on today's long pampered courses with fast greens. How many times should I repeat this simple truth ?

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. I have enough.