Want to find out what everybody thinks of this, not the argument in the video but what Oberholser says. Lag and Two, if you could leave your opinions as each has seen the best with each technology. Seems that the argument is either for more depth today because players are better or the argument is for old technology creating a larger gap between player so there could never the amount of depth there is today. Is there that much more depth now than in 2000 when Tiger was winning everything or was it that with steel shafts, small metal heads, and balata balls Tiger was that much better than everyone. He was and is that much better, and would probably have 20 majors if technology did not advance. Jack is Jack, hard to believe a player would seriously think he would get waxed.
I don’t believe that Tiger is playing just as good and everyone else is better. How could anyone think that? A quick glance at stats will tell you otherwise as if it weren’t obvious in the first place. Also, the Pro V-1 was already out in 2000 so his success wasn’t based on balata balls, it was just based on really good golf.
I would go with Jack, only because of the number of Hall of Fame players he had to beat in his career. Tiger’s main competition has come from Phil, VJ, Duval, Els for a few years… I just don’t think Tiger has had to deal with the intimidation factor that Jack had to deal with. Player, Trevino, Palmer, Floyd, Miller, Watson, Watkins, Strange, Seve, Crenshaw, Casper, Boros, De Vicenzo, Irwin, Kite, Littler, Aoki, Strange, Thomson…
So my argument would be that Jack won all his majors against much tougher competition… meaning guys that were not afraid to back down in majors. Had Tiger played in that era, he would not have won as many majors has he has now. Had Tiger won 30 majors my now… I might say Tiger… but it was different eras. More good players now… but less great ones in my opinion.
And it continues… This is getting beyond depressing. A golf on TV boycott is in order. As a fan of wanting to watch the best, I’m tired of driver/short iron over and over as it is. Yet they keep making ball go further/straighter and clubs with larger sweetspots. I noticed how Rory seemed to be hitting the ball longer the past weekend in Australia and came across this:
http://www.pgatour.com/equipmentreport/2013/12/04/nike-rzn.html
I played the Aus Open @ Royal Sydney when Calcavechie won the thing. The 18th hole needed a strong driver and a mid iron. To watch players hitting 2 iron then wedge made me switch channels .
Steve
The game made more sense when the clubs, ball and courses were in harmony so that it was required that all the clubs in the bag be used for approach shots and the greens were designed in a way to accept the variety of trajectories. That version of golf is still the most intelligent and articulate version of the game. It will come back. It’s starting to happen. People are talking more and more about it. The USGA has been the big problem by not properly regulating the gear and ball keeping the great historic courses not only relevant but the intention of their design intact.
Does anyone get the feeling that golf is becoming more like car racing (or an arms race for that matter) where it is the golfer with the best go-long, go-straight technology rather than the player with the best skill? It’s becoming less about the player and more about the equipment the player is bringing to the course that day.
I think it’s just turned into a different game. Like Grand Prix racing turning into drag racing. Or 9 ball into 8 ball. Chess to Checkers.
There is still a skill set to master for the modern game, just like other games. I think the modern players are doing well with what they have, but I think for the most part they would not play the old game very well. They might learn over time, and it would likely be a different cast of characters on top of the money list.
Ultimately both games should exist. There was nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with the old game. It fact I believe it to be a much more interesting and articulate game that what is going on now. But to each their own. However, I feel strongly that both games should exist. The old game should still be a viable one to learn, to complete and feel a passion for. I still do. I have have very little interest in the modern game because I grew up with the great game. The modern game just seems silly on so many levels… top to bottom really…knowing where the game was before. But I understand that over the last 15 years or so, the majority of players who now play golf learned the modern game. That’s all they know, and it’s understandable why there is so much hostility toward the old game. It’s disrespected, disregarded and seen as archaic and outdated. I find that unacceptable given the rich and storied history of the great persimmon age.
Very interesting words from Tiger Woods at his press conference yesterday.
Asked about the fields now to his 2000 era.
And
Tiger will be the last of the truly Great’s of All-Time to have grown up on and used as a professional Balata balls (also admitted persimmon user back in the day). The last of an era and is in a unique spot to have the opinion above considering he now also plays in the modern equipment era (and give him props for evolving and still dominating).
But a few things.
First, he is being a tad contradictory imo considering tech has helped him just like the rest. He has used the latest tech drivers from Nike every few years and taking advantage of the advancements too. He has surely lost some swing speed over the years from age and injuries but has compensated well with longer/lighter driver shaft (now plays 45" shaft but he was hitting 300y drives in year 2000 with 43 3/4" STEEL!) and maxed COR faces. He actually put the new latest Nike driver in the bag this weekend and has probably driven it best he has all year.
Second, of ALL the people, he would have an influential say to the power’s that be if he wanted to. He couldn’t have even slowed the runaway train of innovation by the OEM’s by any means but he MAY have been able to limit (even if a little) what is allowed for play. {Maybe he has ZERO say and has had to focus on evolving as well to keep up} That says A LOT. The players themselves are enjoying it. I know I would.
If I was out there trying to earn a paycheck, make cuts and keep my card I know I’d welcome an additional 1/2 club length from a new ball my sponsor is preferring me to play anyway. Or new groove advancements that will allow me to still stick a green despite my poor FIR%. Etc.
Bottom line, the only option is the governing bodies wake up and realize themselves what is happening to the game OR a separate tour happens for limited tech Golf… which no one will play. I say as fans, we start to boycott golf on TV and going to events. Voice our opinion why.
I watched a little bit of the Australian Open final round match last weekend between Rory and Adam Scott. Those guys were missing fairways with IRONS! Missing greens with short irons. Scott uses a broomstick for a putter. I kept thinking “really? These are two top 10s in world”? “is rest of golf just that bad that these guys are top 10’s or are they just that much better at playing this modern type of golf”?
I understand you want to see a different brand of golf, but criticizing some of the best players in the world seems to rob you of opportunities of learning from what modern players do so well.
I looked on pgatour.com and the best ball-striking year I could find with Lee Trevino was in 1980, he probably had better statistical years, but they didn’t keep the stats before 1980. He hit 72% of the fairways and 70% GIR while averaging about 260 off the tee. Those are impressive stats, but I don’t see how they are unarguably better than the best modern players.
I do like a lot of what is talked about on the site, and I would like to see the game go back to more traditional parameters, but I think it comes off as arrogant to some when persimmon and blade players sit back and act like their game is superior. The fact is the best players today very well may be better than the ones of the past because of the law of large numbers.
Again, I appreciate what is talked about on the site, but we should be reasonable about the comments. There were many people who made money on tour flipping the club well before light-weight and upright gear.
Also, just a correction to your post about Tiger. He actually was one of the last players to change gear. He played steel shafts in the driver and fairway woods longer than most anyone else. You made it sound like he was the first to welcome the new tech
What do the modern players do so well?
Other than hitting it 15% farther…
Well, I would assume they do everything quite well. My line of logic is this:
If there are more golfers now than ever before and the incentives for playing professional golf are higher than ever, then the ones playing on tour are going to be very good. If they weren't, then other people would take their place. I understand the argument that the game is different today and you don't see the shot-making you used to, but the parameters have changed, so a change in play doesn't mean the players are inferior to the ones of the past. for example, regardless of equipment, I don't think anyone on this site could hold a candle against Tiger Woods. I am fine to agree to disagree, I just wanted to voice that fact that this site can sound very bigoted at times. I just find that disappointing because some of the information is actually quite useful and interesting.
I don’t think bigotry is the correct term. But I think a lot of folks around here feel similar about how golf has evolved recently. But we always welcome your comments and opinions.
The modern game lacks in testing players in the way it did in the past.
In the balata persimmon era, you had to put the ball in the fairway, and in the major events, you had to put the ball
into the correct part of the fairway.
Where is the long iron play into par 4’s? That was really critical to mastering the game… that skill set is all but gone.
The greens were much smaller on the great classic tracks, so the iron play required
more precision to keep the ball below the hole. The courses were NOT homogenized like they are today. They putt on greens that are basically the same speed every week, fairways are perfect, sand in the bunkers is “tour sand” etc. The old game prided itself on diversity, so players had to learn to play off and putt on different surfaces, speeds, hardness, softness… all varied considerably. Going back to Snead, Hogan, Nelson era, they didn’t even use yardage books, so there is an entire skill set missing from the game since then. Golf swings had to be better to control a high spinning ball. You couldn’t just tee it up on a pencil and swing as hard as you can and then expect a wedge or short iron into every par 4.
There were many more layers to the game before. Very one dimensional now. No doubt players are good at the checkers version of golf, but how would they do if they had to play it the old way? Well, that’s not impossible to find out. But every time I see an article or a modern player trying out the old stuff, they don’t do very well. Why? Because their golf swings are designed for the modern game. Would they adapt to a more difficult version of golf? Some would, some certainly would not.
It would be a different set of players on top.
They are playing par 68’s most weeks. If par 5’s are reachable with mid or even long irons, or hybrid, it’s a par 4. Most of the modern courses have huge greens, so the green size and shape doesn’t come in as a factor as it did in the past.
We don’t see too many tight layouts anymore. Tiger won’t even play those events. He skips Riviera, Colonial, Harbor Town because they don’t fit his style of game. I think that’s disappointing to see.
I just now watched Zack Johnson shank an 8 iron into a lake on the final hole of Tigers’ event. Tiger can’t get a drive into the fairway on the last hole. If you think this is great golf… then you are enjoying the modern game more than I do.
Nice hole out with the wedge shot for Zack… I think the guys now are very good wedge players. Short games are fantastic. But they don’t drive the ball well, iron play is not so impressive, and long iron play is not being tested correctly.
I actually agree with a lot of what you said here, but I am defending the players and not the game. I think this site bashes players a lot when in reality most, it not all commentators, couldn’t come close to competing with these guys. I have no problem with rolling back the game to more of what it used to be, but it doesn’t mean the current players don’t have amazing talent.
I probably love persimmon and blades more than most 24 yr olds out there, but the reality is many current players are really really good. I played persimmon against this 18 yr old that shot 31 on the front nine with completely new gear. I was still impressed though; he played really good golf and that’s all. It wasn’t just short game either; he hit a lot of really good shots and beat me fair and square.
As far as Zach and Tiger; golfers have always missed shots. I am not going to sit here and argue about it because the reality is there aren’t reliable statistics to back up claims of how good players used to be. The pgatour has some stats that go to 1980, and there aren’t noticeable accuracy differences in what is available.
Again, I respect what you guys do here. If not for this site I would never have flattened my lie angles which has been a great change for me. But if people on this site think modern players can’t flat out play they are just kidding themselves.
You could make arguments against that, but most of the ones I have seen on here aren’t convincing or backed up with any real evidence.
I actually think I would see eye to eye with most on here about a ton of things, but bashing players because they play a different game is wrong to me.
I can only comment based upon my own experiences and what I saw playing golf in the persimmon age and what I see now.
Statistics don’t tell everything. If they did have stats back then it wouldn’t mean much because the rough was higher, especially in majors. Fairways tighter, greens smaller. The ball curved more and spun more. So if you were off, you might not have good stats for a few weeks. I’m disappointed seeing bad golf when these guys are suppose to be “on”. Every time I turn on the TV to watch modern pros, it seems like they don’t strike the ball very well. I had just flipped on the golf today with Tiger and Zack on 18. Tiger misses the fairway left and leaves it out right into the front bunker. Zack shanks an 8 iron from center of the fairway into the water. They both walk off with par. Ok… no pictures on the scorecard… I get that. But how can a guy win the Masters hooking his drive deep into the trees? I guess by having a wedge in his hand for the recovery not a 3 iron. G Norman lost majors hitting bad shots.
I came from an age where it was not uncommon for me as a tour player to see guys hit every fairway sometimes for two or three days. A miss might be first cut or it just rolled slightly through a dogleg etc. I saw a lot of great strikers who really controlled and worked the ball around the course with a very high level of skilled shotmaking. I just don’t see that kind of golf anymore.
The wedging, short game stuff, putting is really impressive these days. But I don’t see the reason for getting rid of the style of golf Faldo played or Curtis Strange… or other precision style strikers. There have always been long hitters but to skew the game in favor of that style of play only isn’t good for golf. It’s not good for pro golf.
Where is this kind of ball striking?
[youtube]George Knudson Great Hitter of a Golf Ball! - YouTube
If you consider that most would classify this as archaic gear, ball etc… just that much more impressive. But I would argue that the gear and swings were actually better for the task at hand. Very sophisticated golf swing Knudson had for example. If you know what to look for, it’s working in a very different way. I think it’s much better than what I see in the modern players if the task is truly ball control. Things working from the core with heavier gear and better physics being applied. The ball spun more which helped the better players, and hurt other players. Much more punishing on bad shots.
Yeah again agree to disagree. And that is more than fine, I just am not fond of trusting someone’s experience/memories as a source. Haha I was at the range and this old dude told me “I could stripe a 6 iron 220 when I was your age… The older I get the better I was.” haha, but cool if you are right, but I doubt it. Cool footage of knudson btw, I have seen it a million times, but rounds like that do still happen. Did you see Tiger’s round on Friday? He hit it stiff a number of times and I don’t think he missed a fairway. Also Mahan, Furyk, Durant, and some others hit the ball great and often have rounds where they hit all or most of the fairways and greens. Durant is averaging over 80% fairways hit right now, which is over 11 a round. So lots of guys can still hit it pretty solid. It doesn’t make sense to take an outlier like Knudson and compare him to the average modern tour player, of course there will be a discrepancy. However, compared to other outliers in terms of ball-striking it seems less unusual.
Wish you all the best. I really am interested in your methods, if there is someone near utah send them my way and I can see if the results are impressive for myself. But for now I will stick with the logic that the ones out there winning are probably better than those that criticize them on the internet.
Nobody was hitting 6 irons 220 back then. Maybe 170 tops. Most hit them 160.
A lot of people obviously like the modern game… like yourself.
Thanks for stopping by… appreciate you taking the time to post.
You are a class act Lag…
Haha that is the point of the quote. He clearly didn’t hit a 6 iron 220, but our memories get skewed fairly quickly. That’s why he said the older he gets the better he was… Anyway, thanks and the best to you all
I was watching the Tiger round yesterday and the announcers were talking about Tiger’s new driver from Nike. The key thing they were discussing is that the new driver has a heavier shaft than before and it weighs in closer to a steel shaft than a graphite shaft. I think they also mentioned the head weight may be more as well, but I am not sure on that point.
Could Tiger be on to something?