powered by Google  
  Track your favorite teams and players.
Free membership, Register Now
Already a member, Log In
 


Community | Help
When Nicklaus ruled the Masters Sports News
Home    Fantasy    NFL  |  MLB  |  NBA  |  NHL  |  College FB  |  College BK  |  Golf  |  Racing  |  Tennis  |  Horses  |  MMA  |  More
CBS College  |  High School  |  Mobile  |  Shop
Community Home | My Profile | My Blog | Groups | My Settings | My Account | Member Search | Blog Search | About Community
 

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters


View Message BoardViews:      


When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:88
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 27, 2008

April 9, 2008 12:24 am
<sup>

Good grief Charlie Brown!

Someone (?) just came down from the mountain and gave us the following pronouncements. I’m beginning to think he has never touched a club in his life and knows even less about golf played at its highest level.

He proclaims:

- Technology has impacted the amateur game more than the Tour level game. 

- Tiger is still hitting forged blades with steel shafts which are virtually the same as what Jack was hitting.

- Drivers smack the nut further and straighter these days.

- At the amateur level technology is a tremendous help, not so much at the pro level.  At the pro level, the longer the drive, the more precise the accuracy must be off the tee to keep the ball in the fairway.

- A larger sweet spot on drivers will cause fewer mishits but that's not a serious problem at the pro level regardless of whether they are hitting persimmon or Titanium.

- Pros still have to contend with doglegs, so they still need to work the ball to fit the fairways.

- on and on and on . . . blah, blah, blah.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news BG . . . but here are what the PROFESSIONAL experts say:

from: USA Today

(excerpts from an article on PGATour professional Brandt Snedeker playing 18 holes with vintage golf equipment versus his current modern equipment. Brandt didn’t break 80.)

Brandt Snedeker: "Technology certainly makes the game easier for everyone to play. It makes the game easier for the pros to play."

Brandt Snedeker: "The biggest difference is the new ball doesn't curve as much anymore. It was a more precise game back then. The ball was spinning so much more, and it was so much harder to control vs. today's golf ball. The old ball wanted to curve 20, 30, 40 yards."

Brandt Snedeker: "They (old timers) had to be unbelievable ball strikers to hit the ball straight and as solid as they did. I truly appreciate growing up in the generation that I did, because I don't think I would have grown up to be a pro golfer if I had to have played with the old stuff. It is so much different, so much tougher."

Brandt Snedeker: "The players in the past had to have great tempo to control the ball back then. It proves the old guys were so much better course managers. They had to think their way around the golf course so much more because of the way the ball moved."

Jack Nicklaus: "Once we got into a wound golf ball and once we got into steel shafts, the game from basically the early 1930s until 1995 changed very little, and all the golf courses that were built needed very little adjustment to be able to handle any kind of a tournament. From 1995 to today, it's a totally different game. It's certainly not that game that I played when I grew up. I don't mean to be on my preaching stool again, but we need to do something where it brings the game back to where we don't have 17,000 obsolete golf courses in this country and only 20 courses for tournaments."

Lee Trevino: "If we had (the new) golf ball in my day, the best of us would have hit it 300 yards and Jack Nicklaus would have hit it 360."

from: GOLF Magazine

(from the April 2004 article on Luke Donald PGATour and Ryder Cup professional playing a round with vintage golf clubs)

Luke Donald: "Well, here goes nothing. There's a big difference in the sound and feel at impact. The MacGregor persimmon feels dead, like I'm hitting a grapefruit. It's a struggle to get the ball into the air with the driver. The balata ball has a low, flat trajectory that dives quickly at the end. The ProV1x proves easier to get airborne, but only just. On the 1st hole, I make a decent swing at least the contact feels fine. But when I look up the ball is knee-high. Almost gives the photographer a haircut."

Luke Donald: "My current driver with modern balls sends it 50 yards past the old MacGregor with the balata. The Pro V1x takes off much higher and stays in the air a lot longer. The difference between the old and new balls is amazing. Jack Nicklaus always says the modern ball is the biggest reason for the length we get these days. Now I have to agree."

Luke Donald: "I notice the Wilson Staff Dyna-Powered 4-iron has more loft than my Mizuno 4-iron, and the shaft is about an inch and a half shorter. Not surprisingly, my current set plays about a club longer throughout the bag."

(sidebar: the higher ball flight of the modern ball enables today’s irons to be built "stronger" than in the past (i.e., longer in length and with less effective loft). A vintage Wilson Staff 4-iron is actually a 6-iron by today’s standards.)

Luke Donald: "So what did I learn? Modern technology has definitely made the game easier. I've gained a new measure of respect for the old-timers, who couldn't just crush the ball; they had to be true shotmakers."

from: the U.S.G.A.

(a Statistical Analysis of PGA Tour Skill Rankings 1980-2006 / USGA Research and Test Center / June 1, 2007)

quote: "The PGA Tour has recorded and published Tour Player performance statistics since 1980. All of this information is published for each year on the PGA Tour website (www.pgatour.com). Among a number of parameters listed on the PGA Tour website, these published statistics include four key skills. These are:

- driving distance

- driving accuracy

- greens in regulation

- putting average

"In addition, the PGA Tour records and publishes the amount of money each player has won during each year. The players’ annual performance for money won and all measured skills are ranked from the highest to the lowest. Correlating the money won rankings to skill rankings can be used to determine the relative importance of key skills to winning and how the relative importance has changed on the PGA Tour over the period from 1980 to 2006.

Analysis of Rank Correlation

- (quote) Driving Distance ranking has a relatively low correlation to Money ranking.

- (quote) Driving Accuracy has changed the most over the time period studied. The overall standard deviation of the results is higher than the other skills. During the 1980’s Driving Accuracy was as nearly as strongly correlated to money ranking as GIR and Putting Average.

- (quote) This (driving accuracy) changed in 1992 and again in 2003. For the current era (2003-06), the level of correlation between Money ranking and Driving Accuracy rank has nearly reached the lowest level absolute value it can attain.

Conclusions?

Contrary to BG’s pronouncements, driving distance and driving accuracy are less important on tour today than at any time in the past 28 years.

The "big distance bombers" aren’t winning (i.e., Bubba Watson, ranked 1<sup> st in 2006 and 2007, and John Daly, ranked 2nd in 2007) . . . and the PGATour’s winners aren’t very accurate off the tee (i.e., Tiger Woods, ranked 139th in 2006 and 152nd in 2007, and Phil Mickelson, ranked 180th in 2006 and 181st in 2007).</sup>

Have a nice climb back up that mountain. And watch out for that burning bu.tt . . .I mean bush.

</sup>

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 8, 2007

April 9, 2008 10:34 am
Well said 1 iron, I have always been saying the ball is the biggest difference, it's much more consistant than it was even 10 years ago. The game is still very hard, but not like it once was. As for course distance, that is hogwash, the distance added to courses is nothing compared to how far new balls travel

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Jun 6, 2007

April 9, 2008 1:58 pm

This is my own personal experience with shooting good scores with the old tech and now with the new.

In 1992, I had a set of Titleist tours that I played with from 1979 and was shooting par golf or better for five or six years.  We played balata balls back then for money and when just "practicing" played DTs.  We could back up DTs but could spin a balata right off the green.  We had to because come tournament time the greens keepers would water the front approach and keep the rest of the green bone dry.  This was to eliminate you from throwing darts and you couldn't St. Andrews bump and run it either.  The greens weren't always 9s to 11s on the stimp.  Only when it was the height of the summer and the ponds were down.  Otherwise the greens were 12s to 14s just like today.

With these clubs I always played a fade.  I could eliminate the whole left side of the course and concentrate on the fairways and pins.  My eight iron went 150 yds. 

In 2004 I was hired to a position where I actually have time to play golf again.  I bought a set of Maltby's by the advice of the Golf Galaxy salesman for a set which would enhance a casual player who used to be pretty good.  They are cavity back and perimeter weighted with adjustable weights.  After the fitting, I never "felt" contact with the ball on "clean" shots.  This actually disturbed me.  I like to feel whether I mis-hit or "pured" a shot.  My Titleists always gave me feedback.  I began to wonder about what would happen to my striking ability.  Would I lose it since I couldn't tell where on the face the ball was contacting?

Turns out it doesn't matter.  At the range one day, I did a little experiment.  I purposely tried to mis-hit a few shots.  I hit some on the toe and thinned some and what I thought chunked a few.  (Not always on purpose or what I was really trying to do but you get the idea.)  I then tried my best to hit "clean" shots.  I went out to the green to retrieve my balls and found much to my amazement that I couldn't clearly define as a whole what shots were hit well and which ones weren't.  Then I tried to hit all the shots "clean" and retrieved those.  Similar results and similar pattern spread.  BTW, my eight iron now goes 165 yds and I'm over 40yo. 

Conclusion:  Todays clubs and balls makes a player more consistent no matter what hand eye coordination skill they have.  They also enable a player to hit the ball further.  I agree the manufacturers have decreased the loft to gain this distance.  It is only a false sense of power though.  The seven iron is the five iron head on the seven iron shaft.  The only variable I can attest to is clubhead speed.  If you can maintain that clubhead speed through the ball, then the ball will travel very consistently and with not much left to right variance even if struck off-center on the face.

The only problem is, I can't eliminate the left side of a course any more.  I more or less hit a staight shot and if I pull it, I can't make it come back. 

I asked the pro for some good balls and he pointed me to the ProV.  I think they are like hitting DTs and they don't spin like they should.  I can get a bounce and stop but not too much spin back unless the green favors the front and I have a short iron in my hand.  I used to get as much spin with my five iron as I do now with my eight iron.

1iron, along with your stats and quotes, I would agree the old timers were shot makers and todays golfers are ball knockers.  I feel the same way.  I cannot try to shape a shot unless I do in my swing what I used to do to "really" bend the ball.  I look like I'm imitating Arnie when I do that.  Technology has taken most of the art away from the players, Pro or Amateur.

And where is my 1 iron?  :-)  Heck I didn't even get a two iron with my set!! 

P.S.  Try not to think of all Amateurs as being 15 handicap or worse.  Some of us would love to be local PGA Golf Pros but have families to support.  (Notice I said Golf Pro and not Pro Golfer - big difference too!!)


When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:88
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 27, 2008

April 9, 2008 2:29 pm

Posters,

Through the miracle of internet technology, we have been joined by a few of golf’s greatest champions, teachers and scribes in response to an earlier post. Each response below was taken from the December 28, 2007 issue of Golf World Magazine from an article titled: The Shape of Shotmaking, by Nick Seitz.

Enjoy . . .

Subject: Driver Accuracy

According to the Poster: "At the pro level, the longer the drive, the more precise the accuracy must be off the tee to keep the ball in the fairway."

Response from

Response from Nick Seitz -

Also from Nick Seitz - Vijay Singh won nine tournaments in 2004 and popularized what has become known as a "bomb and gouge" style, he routinely ripped drivers on par 4s with little regard for the rough, ranking 150th in fairways hit but second in greens in regulation and first in scoring average and money.

Subject: Today’s Shotmakingruined the game. It doesn't bend as much. The USGA dropped the ball with the golf ball.

According to the Poster: "Tiger is still hitting forged blades with steel shafts which are virtually the same as what Jack was hitting." 

Response from Johnny Miller -

Response from Nick Seitz -

Subject: More of This Poster’s Hyperbole

According to the Poster: "Pins were not placed just a couple strides beyond cavernous, protecting bunkers and on steep slopes away from the bunker or other hazard."

Collective response from the contributors of this Golf World Magazine article - LMAO

The irons today are weighted at the bottom to get the ball up, but you can't put sidespin on it. Greg Norman considers Tiger Woods the exception to an unexceptional shotmaking norm. Noting that he grew up in an era when the better players could maneuver the ball maybe 60 feet in the air either way, the entrepreneurial Aussie finds the modern game boringly predictable. He thinks restrictions should be put on equipment for the pros since amateurs don't play the same super-tweaked gear anyway.

According to the Poster: "The larger sweet spot hampers (?) the pro's ability to work the ball.  Pros still have to contend with doglegs, so they still need to work the ball to fit the fairways."

Response from Nick Seitz - Welcome to the new shotmaking: Hit it hard, hit it high, hit it far. Shotmaking is not quite a lost art. But it may not survive for another generation at the current rate of change. It's going the way of acoustic music, manual transmissions and the typewriter. Today shotmaking shows more around the green than off the tee and into the green where it consists mainly of controlling trajectory in manipulating the ball to get it closer to Point B from Point A.

Response from Tiger Woods - Most of today's young players never had to work the ball growing up because they were more concerned about distance. Shotmaking has changed because of the balls. They're harder to work. They go straighter.

Response from Lee Trevino - The modern ball has

Subject: Forged Irons

Nick Price - It's irrelevant whether these big hitters drive it in the rough because with square grooves they can stop the ball on the green anyway. The 60-degree wedge has made the guys fearless because even if they short-side themselves they can still get it up and down. When the more-lofted wedges came along Seve Ballesteros lost a lot of his advantage the way Greg Norman and I lost our edge as long and accurate drivers when the big-headed drivers came out. Conventional wisdom has held that rough should be a half-stroke penalty. Missing fairways still negatively affects scoring on tour, but not as much as it used to. The statistics of two players from 2007, the long-hitting Woods and the light-hitting Funk, show that on approaches of 175 yards and in, the difference between playing from the fairway versus the rough was less than a quarter of a shot for Funk and a third of a shot for Woods. Singh said he would rather be in the rough with a wedge than in the fairway with a 6-iron. Tour players say there is no longer such a thing as a flier lie that causes the ball to take off with diminished spin like a knuckleball, even from average rough.

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:88
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 27, 2008

April 9, 2008 2:36 pm

(final attempt)

 

Posters,

Through the miracle of internet technology, we have been joined by a few of golf’s greatest champions, teachers and scribes in response to an earlier post. Each response below was taken from the December 28, 2007 issue of Golf World Magazine from an article titled: The Shape of Shotmaking, by Nick Seitz.

Enjoy . . .

Subject: Driver Accuracy

According to the Poster: "At the pro level, the longer the drive, the more precise the accuracy must be off the tee to keep the ball in the fairway."

Response from

Nick Price - It's irrelevant whether these big hitters drive it in the rough because with square grooves they can stop the ball on the green anyway. The 60-degree wedge has made the guys fearless because even if they short-side themselves they can still get it up and down. When the more-lofted wedges came along Seve Ballesteros lost a lot of his advantage the way Greg Norman and I lost our edge as long and accurate drivers when the big-headed drivers came out.

Response from Nick Seitz -

Conventional wisdom has held that rough should be a half-stroke penalty. Missing fairways still negatively affects scoring on tour, but not as much as it used to. The statistics of two players from 2007, the long-hitting Woods and the light-hitting Funk, show that on approaches of 175 yards and in, the difference between playing from the fairway versus the rough was less than a quarter of a shot for Funk and a third of a shot for Woods.

Also from Nick Seitz - Vijay Singh won nine tournaments in 2004 and popularized what has become known as a "bomb and gouge" style, he routinely ripped drivers on par 4s with little regard for the rough, ranking 150th in fairways hit but second in greens in regulation and first in scoring average and money.

Singh said he would rather be in the rough with a wedge than in the fairway with a 6-iron. Tour players say there is no longer such a thing as a flier lie that causes the ball to take off with diminished spin like a knuckleball, even from average rough.

Subject: Today’s Shotmaking

According to the Poster: "The larger sweet spot hampers (?) the pro's ability to work the ball.  Pros still have to contend with doglegs, so they still need to work the ball to fit the fairways."

Response from Nick Seitz - Welcome to the new shotmaking: Hit it hard, hit it high, hit it far. Shotmaking is not quite a lost art. But it may not survive for another generation at the current rate of change. It's going the way of acoustic music, manual transmissions and the typewriter. Today shotmaking shows more around the green than off the tee and into the green where it consists mainly of controlling trajectory in manipulating the ball to get it closer to Point B from Point A.

Response from Tiger Woods - Most of today's young players never had to work the ball growing up because they were more concerned about distance. Shotmaking has changed because of the balls. They're harder to work. They go straighter.

Response from Lee Trevino - The modern ball has

ruined the game. It doesn't bend as much. The USGA dropped the ball with the golf ball.

Subject: Forged Irons

According to the Poster: "Tiger is still hitting forged blades with steel shafts which are virtually the same as what Jack was hitting." 

Response from Johnny Miller -

The irons today are weighted at the bottom to get the ball up, but you can't put sidespin on it.

Response from Nick Seitz -

Greg Norman considers Tiger Woods the exception to an unexceptional shotmaking norm. Noting that he grew up in an era when the better players could maneuver the ball maybe 60 feet in the air either way, the entrepreneurial Aussie finds the modern game boringly predictable. He thinks restrictions should be put on equipment for the pros since amateurs don't play the same super-tweaked gear anyway.

Subject: More of This Poster’s Hyperbole

According to the Poster: "Pins were not placed just a couple strides beyond cavernous, protecting bunkers and on steep slopes away from the bunker or other hazard."

Collective response from the contributors of this Golf World Magazine article - LMAO


When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 28, 2006

April 9, 2008 8:56 pm
040908 - As per usual Baby G; u and ihatelemons are right on target with the speed of the greens; when they got to an 11 the announcers would be going, unbelievable, etc., etc.  To give some description on how fast the greens were at the Masters post 1978, when Nicklaus won in 1986 I remember him mock running to his ball to mark it, so it did not slide back down on one of Johnny Millers false frontsl the crowd was laughing, but it was an example of how quick the greens actually got, and they are faster today.

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 6, 2008

April 9, 2008 9:38 pm
imno1now.......................Similar results and similar pattern spread.  BTW, my eight iron now goes 165 yds and I'm over 40yo. 

then i hope you post your score soon in the poster challenge.....see the master thread for latest results, and i expect you'll post a score in the 70's if your 8 iron is trippin at 165!.............btw ..why would u practice with a DT, if you " play " with a prov?....

iho.....

 


When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:17
Level:Amateur
Since:Mar 6, 2007

April 9, 2008 10:56 pm
Nicklaus couldn't hold Tiger's jock.  When it's all said and done Tiger will probably win over 125 PGA Tour events and over 25 majors.  He's just getting serious.

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 13, 2006

April 10, 2008 2:56 am
25 majors is wishful thinking, never happen. But he will have the record of fans in his butt though.

When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Jun 6, 2007

April 10, 2008 1:08 pm

IHO,

I haven't been able to get out and play yet.  Our glorious weather in central Ohio is still in the 40's and the grass hasn't started to grow yet.  Maybe in a week or two.

I used to practice with a DT because they lasted longer and I didn't make all that much money back then.  I worked at a course for about 5 years after I was in a pedestrian - car accident.  I was waiting on a settlement and my lawyer told me I couldn't do anything strenuous.  I didn't have a degree at the time so I vegged at the course as a starter, then ranger, then on the greens crew.  I played every day for gas and dinner money with the local synicate.  (Three keys to good golf...1. Play often, 2. Play often, and 3. Play often.)  I ate beans quite often sometimes too.

Last year I played in an evening 9 hole league.  I averaged 38 and had one even par round towards the end.  I just started back seriously last summer and trying to teach my wife.  Before that, I played maybe three times a year because I have been trying to break into a new career.

I never thought I'd ever play "girly" golf, but it seems that is the only way now I'll get any serious playing time.

I look forward to posting once our season kicks in.  No BS either, I promise!!!


When Nicklaus ruled the Masters
-