Euro Tour

[birly-shirly]

@leon and kevin

you're right. and since I started out by saying that this was a pointless argument, I have no excuse.

I thought robbohank made some good, thoughtful points and tried to respond in kind. should have left it there.

dariusz - if you want to talk about something new, I wouldn't mind hearing how e-MOI helps square the clubface more consistently. I've seen Richie's blog about how adjustments to swingweight can affect the dispersion of face contact - but not clubface angle.

 

[birly-shirly]

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.

Dariusz - I think you maybe missed my broader point. I don't normally try to give gratuitous offence, but if you're happy to dismiss Clarke as a mediocre ballstriking talent without knowing his history, well, you've got to expect to take some heat for that.

 

[conkanen]

Also, on clubs - I think oversize drivers are hugely more forgiving for the average player.

I think Brandt S would disagree vehemently with this. And so would a lot of others who went through the Persimmon/Metal wood transition in the late 80’s early 90’s(i.e. Bradley Hughes).

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.

I agree.

 

[conkanen]

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.

I agree the guys of today would adapt. It's just a shame the gear and especially ball were not reeled in so we could actually make some decent comparisons to players of yester-year.

 

[conkanen]

Guys like Trevino wouldn't even likely keep their card today because of the style of play.

Lot of irony here.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I wouldn't mind hearing how e-MOI helps square the clubface more consistently.

I do not want to take back to you for obvious reasons, but I would not be myself if I won't. I have just returned home and saw this. It was my mistake, of course. eMOI has not much to do with helping to square the face, but with "enlarging" the sweetspot. I must have thought about it when I wrote my answer.

Now I am done with you.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

I think Brandt S would disagree vehemently with this. And so would a lot of others who went through the Persimmon/Metal wood transition in the late 80’s early 90’s(i.e. Bradley Hughes).

It depends how you break down the modern driver into its constituent parts. I think better players have benefited more from longer lighter shafts, higher CoR and reduced spin launch conditions. I think you have to be at a certain level to really capitalise on these advances to any meaningful extent. I think average players have benefitted from the forgiveness on off-centre hits - but I don't think this is such a factor for players who are already pretty consistent out of the middle.

I made the transition from wood to metal myself. I felt that my first oversize titanium driver (prob about 250cc) definitely took out some of my previous bad misses and got a decent looking drive out there. However, I don't remember the better players when I was growing up with wooden drivers hitting many of those kind of skanky shots. Now and again, but not frequently - and these were just low single digits players, not pros in waiting.

Maybe, if you're playing tournaments, a club that saves you 1 or 2 bad drives a week IS that significant. But I think that's a different issue.

 

[drewyallop]

Not suggesting anything but I really have to wonder why the tee to green game was so good for Woods the first 3 rounds and then so poor the last? I know it's golf but it's not like we're talking about a guy who can't perform under the gun.

Regression to the mean.

 

[drewyallop]

Geez. The stats are there for reference. That is all. It can be argued it makes no difference from a statistical standpoint (at the FORTY PERCENT SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL) the ability of a player to drive the ball accurately and far, at least how the PGA TOUR defines accuracy. At least in 2009 it didn't. How do I know? You ever seen Moneyball? I am that dude.

In college I ran a regression run using Money Earned as a dependent variable. Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy combined to create an interaction term (ie Driving Distance percentage x Driving Accuracy Percentage) was one of the independent variables. The stat was deemed statistically significant at the 40% level of confidence (t-stat: -0.85). Well above the 5% level of confidence we like to use in Econometrics. GIR? t-stat of 1.79, still above the 5% level, though not quite as much (just under 8%).

The way accuracy is defined by the TOUR is flawed in the current metagame. If Richie3jack were here he'd say the same thing. The distance to edge of the fairway has to be accounted for. Missing the fairway but still being in position and having the ability to hit a good approach shot and hit the green...is that really a big damn deal? It is way too cut and dried. Going for a tucked pin, missing the green by a foot, landing on the collar and STILL PUTTING even when it counts as a missed green and not a putt? Is that really a big damn deal?

You're looking at the wrong stats, Dariusz. REFERENCE. Not to hold a Keegan Bradley up against your idol.

David,

I haven't looked at the book "Moneygolf" lately and I was wondering how your metrics line up with the stuff therein.

Nice to see that there is a statistics guy here. Too much of half-assed statistics talk in the world.

 

[drewyallop]

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?

This argument has been running for years, on this forum and others, and no amount of stats, or lack of stats, or expertise, or research, or common sense has shifted D one inch in his views. For a while back there, I think he conceded that, for the handful of times that Hogan is reported to have played "the perfect round" of fairways and green - there were any number of other examples of other players with a record of doing the same thing.

Sadly, normal service has resumed and we're back to modern golf, and modern golfers being rubbish - not fit to replace the divots of anyone who played in sepia, or for whom a smoking drive just meant a ciggie clamped between their teeth whilst they played.

Like it Birly. But I have to disagree a little. This thread has provided a lot of laughs.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Lot of irony here.

I know where you're going with that. Faldo had a completely different style of play. Flew it way higher and was a ton more versatile. I was saying it tongue in cheek and there's an obvious chance Trevino could've adapted to modern play. No comparison at all to Faldo.

 

[dschultz6072]

David,

I haven't looked at the book "Moneygolf" lately and I was wondering how your metrics line up with the stuff therein.

Nice to see that there is a statistics guy here. Too much of half-assed statistics talk in the world.

The funny thing is though there is not much literature on the subject, most all of the conclusions drawn from the analysis of data conclude the driving distance and driving accuracy stats are statistically insignificant.

One of my friends who is trying to make the tour likes to take the stats down. Fairways, greens, and putts. I tell him it's not so simple.

Side note...last January I brought my findings about what categories were statistically significant to one of my golf pro buddies, sand save percentage was one. The other was my crack about how driving distance actually showed up as a negative coefficient, meaning, the more money the players made, the lower their driving distance (this is the guy who hits it like Dustin Johnson). It was very marginal, but it was there. He responds "Luke Donald and David Toms haven't won anything in...I don't know how long."

 

[conkanen]

I was saying it tongue in cheek and there's an obvious chance Trevino could've adapted to modern play.

<sarcasm> I think he woulda did alright. </sarcasm>

 

[Kevin Shields]

<sarcasm> I think he woulda did alright. </sarcasm>

6 majors? Maybe.

 

[drewyallop]

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

D,

Question: if hitting todays driver is "child's play" why are the FIR's so bad?

The discussion of sweet spots reminded me of Phil Woods' presentation at ASII. He said that moving the centre of gravity back in irons reduced the effect of off-centre hits (although there is a point of diminishing returns). I have seen some of those 40's era irons and the COG seems to be almost flush with the face (and hit them with anything but a strike centred exactly on the COG and you will want to take up chess).

Also Brian mentioned that he had a chance to look at the head of Hogan's persimmon driver. It was his impression that there was almost no curve on the face i.e. the gear effect on off-centre hits would be minimal.

This tells me that D's worship of the old-timers may not be that irrational. Does it make sense that they had to hit it much more precisely (VSP, HSP, AOA, Dynamic Loft)and do so more consistently with the old tools?

 

[Dariusz J.]

D,
Question: if hitting todays driver is "child's play" why are the FIR's so bad?

Because todays tour pros ballstriking quality is lower. They have easier to hit clubs and the results are worse. One does not need to be Copernicus to agree with my statement that is so often ridiculed.

Moreover, there is a qui pro quo, as always in life. They concentrate on certain aspects that are nowadays more important, i.e. whacking the ball as far as possible without special worries if they hit a fairway or not. One cannot be great ballstriker and swing like Sadlowski - and vice versa, one won't be a ReMAX champ being a great ballstriker.

This tells me that D's worship of the old-timers may not be that irrational. Does it make sense that they had to hit it much more precisely (VSP, HSP, AOA, Dynamic Loft)and do so more consistently with the old tools?

Of course they had to hit it more precisely. Moreover, much more consistently since their game did not forgive mistakes - one of such cost Hogan his 5th US Open title.

Cheers

 

[SteveT]

Just imagine how good they had to be using floppy, flexible, hickory shafts.... it's like hitting a ball with a noodle!!!

Regardless, in the modern swing with modern equipment, golfers should use the most flexible shaft to match their swing speed and downswing shaft loading pattern.... otherwise they will never experience the feel of "snapping the whip" and correct release through impact.

 

[drewyallop]

Because todays tour pros ballstriking quality is lower. They have easier to hit clubs and the results are worse. One does not need to be Copernicus to agree with my statement that is so often ridiculed.

Moreover, there is a qui pro quo, as always in life. They concentrate on certain aspects that are nowadays more important, i.e. whacking the ball as far as possible without special worries if they hit a fairway or not. One cannot be great ballstriker and swing like Sadlowski - and vice versa, one won't be a ReMAX champ being a great ballstriker.




Of course they had to hit it more precisely. Moreover, much more consistently since their game did not forgive mistakes - one of such cost Hogan his 5th US Open title.

Cheers

I am not Copernicus but I do know that the golf world revolves around you D.

Hint: you may want to strike the words "of course" from your English vocabulary.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I am not Copernicus but I do know that the golf world revolves around you D.

Hint: you may want to strike the words "of course" from your English vocabulary.

Heh...if this was true I'd prepare courses my way for these hackers

Using "of course" does not mean I am insanely overconfident, it means more I am strongly convinced inside about something.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

D,

Question: if hitting todays driver is "child's play" why are the FIR's so bad?

The discussion of sweet spots reminded me of Phil Woods' presentation at ASII. He said that moving the centre of gravity back in irons reduced the effect of off-centre hits (although there is a point of diminishing returns). I have seen some of those 40's era irons and the COG seems to be almost flush with the face (and hit them with anything but a strike centred exactly on the COG and you will want to take up chess).

Also Brian mentioned that he had a chance to look at the head of Hogan's persimmon driver. It was his impression that there was almost no curve on the face i.e. the gear effect on off-centre hits would be minimal.

This tells me that D's worship of the old-timers may not be that irrational. Does it make sense that they had to hit it much more precisely (VSP, HSP, AOA, Dynamic Loft)and do so more consistently with the old tools?

Drew - when I hear talk about the CoG being moved backwards from the face, I assume that the conversation is about cavity-backs, not blades. If we're talking ancient and modern blades, then my assumption is that there is very little scope for moving the CoG rearward. With a shorter hosel, you might see the CoG closer to the centre of the face - although from his product line, I don't think Hogan ever realised this for himself.

The flat face on his woods is interesting. I'm sure it's true from a number of accounts but I'm not sure what it tells us. Regardless of the bulge and roll on his driver, his club must have had gear effect. I can't think what the advantage would be of a flat face - maybe he liked the look. Maybe he liked to scare himself at the prospect of a toed snapper. Doubtless, we'll be hearing shortly that there was no bulge and roll because Hogan never missed the sweetspot (although I believe there are quotes from the man himself that would contradict this). I would maintain that a flat driver face is simply bad design - there's no advantage. Aesthetics over function.

It could well be that Hogan wasn't much of a designer. His personal set up didn't make it into his company's product line, and his latter products didn't make it into his tournament bag. He hated pings, which suggests to me he didn't understand them. I don't think he understood the importance of CoG positioning. And he gave us "the speedslot". And he kept giving us pinned necks long after it was necessary. He did do great quality - but not great design, IMOP. And I LIKE the clubs.