Players could be long enough to compete on modern PGA with ABS swing cox11. I got longer with ABS and swing with better tempo. The thing is that it takes training to get the pivot speed up and continuous. To get an idea of how long they could be think of the dumpers combined with Hogans, Normans, Sneads pivot. They would no longer be dumpers, the orbit pull created by a pivot like that would not allow the club to fly off even with a flick of the wrist. Now change the flick of the wrist to a rotation of the forearms and you have a swing.
Modern swings create linear(straight line) speed by being upright, swinging the arms up and down in front of the body adding the wrist flick straight at the target. Two will change your wrist flick to forearm rotation with module 1, most starting ABS hit it shorter because they create linear speed with wrist flick now. You will lose the linear speed of the wrist break to gain the rotational speed of the forearm rotation, this results in shorter hits because it is combined with the pivot stalling arm swing. Two will build you an anchor to handle the body rotation speed(pivot) you will develop in module 3 by training module 2. Then post impact pivot speed is developed in module 3, this is the body rotation speed you need to develop to go with the forearm rotation speed you have trained and distance will be back.
No more arm controlled pivot stalling wrist slapping swing. You will develop a continuous pivot controlled arm following forearm rotating swing. Modern game and vintage game, 10 under is 10 under no matter what era they say. True, the actual physical number is the same. Lets use that logic here. If 2 students are solving a math problem that takes 27 formulas to figure out and both get the same correct answer, are they equally smart. The correct answer is the correct answer no matter what era. True again, but would you still think they are equal if 1 used a calculator. Add to that if I told you that the 1 using the calculator could not do the formulas on paper and come to the same correct answer. Now its interesting, kids can use calculators in multiples of millions that can’t do multiplication tables past 12 x 12 on paper. I am not arguing the fact that they got the same correct answer or the fact that 62 is the same as 62, and I am not arguing against technology. I am arguing that the steps taken, knowledge used, persistence required, training needed, hours invested to get that same result are not equal. 1 is smarter at math and 1 is better at golf, and if your still not with me here you go. If I take a street car around an indy car track in the same time as an indy car then who is a better driver, would anyone say the indy car driver. No, because I did what he did with less power, less tires, less traction, you get the point. The greats shot what modern players shoot with less distance clubs, less forgiving clubs, less forgiving courses, longer courses(compared by approach shot distance percentage related to hole yardage), longer iron shots by club, inferior greens that forced close hits to make putts, a ball that curved and went short on a bad shot like it deserved to, and MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH more pressure with smaller purses combined with all that is listed means they had to have nerves of steel. Nerves now, hitting a low spin prov1 with a cavity back velocity slot 6 iron with super shaft compared to a high spin balata with a flat soled no bounce plain steel sharp knife half the size of the 6 iron is laughable. Not arguing these guys are good, but those guys were great. Not in the same league, and thats why Tiger mopped the floor with them until technology made up for that lack of comparable skill and let them in his untouchable league.
Sergio is good to look at in late 90s early 2000s, not a short hitter.