BOMB: Interesting article in last Friday’s USA Today where the paper had Brandt Snedeker play a round of golf at the Plantation Course at Sea Island, Ga., with both his current set and a set of bats and balls from the 1980s. Love the concept and, can’t be shocked at the result (75 with the new stuff to 80 with the old equipment in 15 to 25 mile-per-hour winds). But I have to admit that if I had done this experiment, the test conditions would have been a tad different. For starters, why use Brandt Snedeker? Nice kid, but the 26-year-old admits that the only previous time he had hit a persimmon driver was fooling around with the father’s when he was 8 years old. Further, Snedeker was brought up with the modern swing—a move that simply does not work with the older equipment. Why not Nick Price or Paul Azinger or Corey Pavin? Each still has game and has extensive experience with both types of equipment. Plus, their swings are somewhat of a hybrid between old school and new move. Also, I’m curious about the ball used—the Bridgestone Rextar Pro Model. Was this an old ball lying around or one that was produced just for this test? Finally, what was the element of fitting involved? Snedeker’s current sticks are launch monitor fine-tuned. I doubt the Mizuno Pro 1 persimmon driver he had such trouble with was exactly the right specs for him. And by the way, the score, if done in match play, would have been New Equipment winning 1-up on the final hole.
GOUGE: First things first, applause to Steve Dimeglio and USA Today for even attempting the story. We at Golf Digest did something similar in 1995, testing old vs. new. That test, orchestrated by our old buddy Ed Weathers, showed essentially that the old equipment was a little inferior to the new equipment but that the old ball worked better with the old clubs than the new ball worked with the old clubs. The Rextar Pro Model, for those interested, was introduced at the 1993 PGA Merchandise Show, so it’s not exactly a Haskel ball. Frankly, though, I don’t know what the exercise proves. It’s like wondering whether Barry Bonds could hit Christy Matthewson. Or better how many home runs Home Run Baker might have hit in the live ball era. Or if Chuck Bednarik would have been a better linebacker if he didn’t have to play both ways. It’s a lark, but it’s not a substantive discussion. The game evolves, it’s fields of play change to meet the demands of the best players. Is Snedeker less skilled than say Steve Pate or Keith Fergus were in their eras? Neither more nor less certainly. But different. So what? Those who wish for a return to the past are like the old woman in that classic short story The Monkey’s Paw. What exactly are we trying to return the game to? What we need to do is find ways to adapt. That’s the challenge. The window for innovation is shrinking, for sure. But there are ways to test the best players. We’ll see that this week, for certain. As for me, I’ll not be pining for persimmon and wound balls ever.
Comments
Archived Comments (2) Click to expand
Post A Comment