Some help with my research paper....(on golf equipment advances)

[footballking732]

alright, so my general research question/thesis is-

Have the modern technological advances really helped players, or is it just another marketing scheme?


opening-

We've all heard about those fancy weights, those longer graphite shafts, and dinner plate sized driver's, but do all of these aforementioned things really add up to a better game? Can a person really score lower just by switching to the top of the line golf equipment? Some people say that Tiger Woods wouldnt be as great if he had to use persimmon woods, and current Champion's Tour players agree, stating that they get much more distance than they used to, even at such an old age. I will attempt to delve into this golf equipment madness, determining whether one could really "buy a better game".

could people provide links to actual research or tests done, as well as their opinion and testimonies... my teacher would like me to use real life people's data from before and after major equipment changes(not just r7 to titty 905r..

 

[clemsonhacker]

sounds good so far

 

[ezra76]

Tiger's personally scores might not be better but he'd crush the field by 20strokes if they all had old equipment. He's the best ballstriker by miles. His 1 iron stinger alone would win for driving distance average. :laugh:

I've played a round with McGregor-Nicklaus blades and Bobby Jones persimmon woods. Driver is pretty much forget it. Have to catch it dead center and even if you do, if the face is not square it imparts more sidespin than I thought was physically possible. I teed off with a 2 wood mostly and it was shorter than what I now play as a 2/3iron hybrid. Longer and way, way more forgiving, that's what I see. A 6500 yd. course would eat me for breakfast using old equipment.

My home course was built in 1933. Some bunkers sit out there like old skeletons, equipment has put them out of play. If I had to tee off with an old 2 or 3w to avoid the rough and the nasty spinning driver shots, they would come into play however. There would also be a lot of long irons into greens. I can see how a lot of the longer holes offer and oppurtunity to "run it up" between the bunkers onto the green. Noone could hit a 2 or 3iron high enough to hit it on in the air and hold them. Back in the day it was a championship course and considered very hard. Now it has been reduced to a mid-length muni with some tough greens and whole lot of ghosts hanging around.

Good luck and I'd be willing to summarize that for you and even try to dig up some old tourney info for you. Snead and Hogan supposively both played there in a tourney. It's still used for High School regional, NCAA local and RI Amatuer tournaments but the old par 5's are now easily reacheable , even by hackers and old men.

 

[footballking732]

jeez ez, how long have you been typing?? you started at 8:19, now its 8:32.....


im predicting a long, long post...

edit- you just beat your post in ahead of mine....

 

[footballking732]

thanks for the info ez!!

i will be using some of that....

keep it coming guys!!

 

[warbirdlover]

I suggest just reading some of the threads in here and you can see how technical this all gets.

 

[Bignose]

Some of the good data you probably want to use is the fact that handicapps haven't changed in many, many years, even though we've gone from persimmon to titanium, from 190 cc to 460 cc, from muscle-back clubs to ultra super game improvement with huge cavity-backs. etc. Cochran and Stobbs' Search for the Perfect Swing is a discussion of one of the very first studies done on golf. It has lots of good info about the clubs of the day (60's). Wishon's got some very good books. His books are The Search for the Perfect Golf Club and The Search for the Perfect Driver. In terms of real studies done, I think that my stop would be the proceedings of the 4 world golf congresses. They have been held every 4 or 5 years or so at University of St. Andrews. There are probably at least some studies in the literature, you can probably use web of science or lexus nexus or one of those searches (library should have access to them, or should know something equivalent.) scholar.google.com isn't too bad, either, but it's results are consistently worse than the others I use (listed above).

 

[dave.]

I started playing in 1979 aged 14 and progressed to a standard I used balata,persimmon and blades.It was an invaluable lesson to learn with a driver smaller than a modern hybrid thats for sure,but are the real differences? Is tha game any easier? Yes,it is.The ball is the biggest difference.The club technology has made it easier to hit the ball longer but then again course have got longer,so the effect is offset,but to an average palyer its so much easier with grahpit shafts in caviry back modern irons,hybrids,high cor and moi plus the 460 heads.the game is so much more enjoyable for the vast majoroty of them.

But back to the ball.Balata was very difficult to control spin (maybe thats why Hogan always preferred surlyn,he never said why,probably felt he was giving other players an advantage).The ball would balloon into wind which was where you needed real skill,and around the greens you had to have a consistent strike or the ball would just over check on you,but you stuck with it because only Hogan could drop and stop surlyn,mere mortals needed balata.

So why haven't handicaps dropped? All this new equipment,fitter players,better balls blah blah blah (only longer courses but the balance is still in favour of the club player)

Putting,thats why.25 years ago few players practiced their short game and it hasn't changed.They think they do 30 or 40% of their time on their short game but its nearer ten,they just bang away now with drivers and long irons just like they did in the early eighties.

Practice routines haven't changed at all.At pro level,the equipment and balls have made a huge difference but because they all use the same gear it doesn't matter,but it has made scoring easier for them and thus the courses have to be longer.

So,its a fact that course have to be longer nowadays and its a fact handicaps have not come down.The immovable ball versus the unstoppable post.All because you still have to get up and down to score.

If I was doing a paper on this I would explore why pyschology hasn't advanced,forget the gear,its a done deal,its already happened,its a fact the balls are better and the ball flies farther and straighter for levels in the game.But why hasn't putting become any easier?

 

[wirehair]

Throw in a little math & physics.

Distance is a function of ball speed as it leaves the club face. Longer shafts (45 now vs 43.5) swing on a longer arc which increases clubhead speed proportionally with increase in shaft length. 100 mph head speed at 43.5" equates to about 104 mph at 45".

Ball speed at 1.5 times head speed makes longer drives. I think about 8-10 yards. 10 yrs ago avg Tour drive 270 yds vs today 290 or so. Attribute 8-10 of those 20 yards to shaft length.

Even better, if it's an English teacher, they'll never understand what you're saying particularly if you develop a fancy looking formula. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.:laugh:

 

[FKA19]

alright, so my general research question/thesis is-

Have the modern technological advances really helped players, or is it just another marketing scheme?


opening-

We've all heard about those fancy weights, those longer graphite shafts, and dinner plate sized driver's, but do all of these aforementioned things really add up to a better game? Can a person really score lower just by switching to the top of the line golf equipment? Some people say that Tiger Woods wouldnt be as great if he had to use persimmon woods, and a 1 iron, and current Champion's Tour players agree, stating that they get much more distance than they used to, even at such an old age. I will attempt to delve into this golf equipment madness, determining whether one could really "buy a better game".

could people provide links to actual research or tests done, as well as their opinion and testimonies... my teacher would like me to use real life people's data from before and after major equipment changes(not just r7 to titty 905r..

for an essay:
1. it should always be in third person, present tense.
2. the second part of bolded text is a run on sentence,

what are your 3 main subtopics? you should start with a few introductory sentences, and then a thesis with your 3 subtopics included in the order they will be presented in the essay.

 

[BStone]

Any of the books from Tom Wishon or Ralph Maltby will give you some ideas of how equipment has evolved. Ralph's MPF rating book is a really good tool to use, he rates clubs based on their vertical and horizontal center of gravity and assigns a number that indicates how forgiving/easy to play a club is. The old Burke blades have something like -200 or so while the Callaway Hawkeye VFT irons are well over 1000. The introduction also has some great graphics that actually show the center of gravity on different clubs and how much it has moved from very high and towards the heel to low and in the center of the club face.

Here is a good link from ralphmaltby.com
Ralph Maltby

 

[footballking732]

for an essay:
1. it should always be in third person, present tense.
2. the second part of bolded text is a run on sentence,

what are your 3 main subtopics? you should start with a few introductory sentences, and then a thesis with your 3 subtopics included in the order they will be presented in the essay.

i fixed the run-on...

my professor said that i could have some in first person, i.e the in the essay i will delve...

im not done with the intro either, that was just the start... im planning on having my 1st topic be about 460 cc club heads, 2nd part is about movable weights, myth or not, and 3rd is just about shafts, everything including length, and graphite vs steel...