How would today's club golfer compare with his counterpart 50 years ago?

[razaar]

What do you think? Are we better players today or not?

[PeteyD]

What the? I was expecting at least an essay if not a novel. You have changed Ray .. you have changed ;)

Equipment is a lot different. Given I was not around 50 years ago that is about all I can say.

[oncewasagolfer]

I don't think the golfer of today would be a better player than 50 years ago there are still a heap of choppers out there:) The equipment has changed a lot and in theory should have made the game easier but there is plenty of bad scores.

[BenM]

I think that the average golfer would be better, the equipment is much more forgiving, the physics are far better understood, and we have greater access to watch the pros play, plus the courses would be of a generally higher standard so things like greens would be more consistent. Probably only a shot or two in it though (and I wasn't around 50 years ago either so just my opinion and it could be wrong)!

[jimandr]

I wasn't playing golf 50 years ago, but I started playing golf 44 years ago, so I think that is close enough to comment.

My memory is a bit hazy and also influenced by the fact that I was a kid looking at adults, but I don't think the standard of golf overall is any better.

My dad was a max handicapper (on 27) and so were most of the people he played with when he started taking me to the course. People didn't always have correct technique then, and many of them still don't now. My conclusion in this regard is that the greater availability through the internet of good coaching hasn't made any difference at all. Golfers still whinge about not having enough time to put what they learned into practice.

The A Grade, B Grade and C Grade split certainly hasn't changed in the last 30 years, and probably never will.

However, I believe the game has changed at the elite level. The really good players hit the ball much further than they used to, and of course their coaching is much better. Even though we complain a bit about the scratch player not being as good as he was, there are a lot more very good players than there used to be. Back when I started, 5 was a very good players handicap, but there were only a few of them. If you were on 5, you made the pennant team. Now, many scratch players can't make the pennant team.

[live4golf]

probably better, I'd be 50 years younger at the very least.

[WBennett]

Go and check out a 50 to 70 year old country course.

Its short. The greens are plain. And the trees are tall. They have had 50 years to grow.

Then check out a course made in the last 20 years. Its probably par 72, with large greens and mounding and 6100m long.

The courses are harder but the equipment makes it easier.

Go and buy an old set of irons off gumtree for 20 bucks. I did a few months back. I hit my 9 iron 145 and 6 iron 175 in the current set of H4's. I hit it 9 iron 115 in the old blades and 6 iron 150ish. The wooden driver goes 200 at best.

And anything off centre means you feel it - and it goes nowhere!

[Coldtopper]

I wasn't playing golf 50 years ago, but I started playing golf 44 years ago, so I think that is close enough to comment.

My memory is a bit hazy and also influenced by the fact that I was a kid looking at adults, but I don't think the standard of golf overall is any better.

However, I believe the game has changed at the elite level. The really good players hit the ball much further than they used to, and of course their coaching is much better. Even though we complain a bit about the scratch player not being as good as he was, there are a lot more very good players than there used to be. Back when I started, 5 was a very good players handicap, but there were only a few of them. If you were on 5, you made the pennant team. Now, many scratch players can't make the pennant team. Obviously a member of a shit course.
Plenty of good golfers playing club golf 50 years ago the likes of uncle Doug, Von Nida etc we are talking about the Peter Thompson era when women stayed at home and looked after the kids so men could play golf. FFS can only comment on 30 years ago same ball size, clubs ect and under always won the club championship.
If you played off 5 you where then and still are today a chopper!

[jimandr]

CT,

That course was Port Kembla. It still exists, and my close personal friend Stuartd147 is a member. He could probably have a look at the honour board and see if the club championship winning score is better now than it was then (not that the score would prove anything).

Anyway, my interpretation of the OP was that Razaar was more interested in the average golfer, not the elite or super elite (which may be a topic for another time). To use one of my favourite plays on words, I think the average golfer today is still pretty average, and the ordinary golfer is still very ordinary.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has trotted out the oft-quoted USA statistic that claims the average handicap of all american golfers has hardly changed over time, despite the advances in golfing technology over that time.

[gameboy]

much fatter

[Coldtopper]

Ok Jim the golf courses of today are much easier. With the couch fairways and pure bent greens golfers dont have to hit the ball as well as they once did imho! I have afew small hot dots they are bloody hard to stop and dont spin around the greens.

[PeteyD]

What are couch fairways and pure bent greens?

[razaar]

I guess it is all conjecture who would be the better golfer. I tend to lean towards the club golfer in the 60’s, mainly because he played the small ball on courses that didn’t have in ground fairway watering and played to poorly designed small greens that wouldn’t hold anything but a perfectly struck shot. Consequently the 60’s club golfer played most of his shots on the ground rather than in the air. The fairways in the Brisbane courses were a mix of blue and green couch and weeds . The greens were mainly blue couch which were oversown with bent in winter in a few clubs which experienced lower temps. There was no such thing as preferred lie (that I can recall); being allowed to mark the ball on the green was introduced in 1960 by the R&A.

The golf clubs in the 60’s were a challenge. For starters there wasn’t that much variety. Slazenger, Spalding, Wilson were pretty much it in SE Qld. The woods were persimmon, laminated or molded plastic with small heads and steel shafts. The irons were blades with steel shafts 25 mm shorter than today’s iron shafts. A standard 5-iron shaft in the 60’s was 37 inches, today it is 38 inches. The sweet spot in the irons was towards the hosel rather than in the centre of the blade. Also the lofts were much weaker. Sand irons were mostly a dual wedge with a sharp leading edge with a deep flange. Putters were blade putters without perimeter weighting. The hosel length determined the location of the sweet spot. A longer hosel had the sweet spot more towards the hosel.

[mrbluu]

I guess it is all conjecture who would be the better golfer. I tend to lean towards the club golfer in the 60’s, mainly because he played the small ball on courses that didn’t have in ground fairway watering and played to poorly designed small greens that wouldn’t hold anything but a perfectly struck shot. Consequently the 60’s club golfer played most of his shots on the ground rather than in the air. The fairways in the Brisbane courses were a mix of blue and green couch and weeds . The greens were mainly blue couch which were oversown with bent in winter in a few clubs which experienced lower temps. There was no such thing as preferred lie (that I can recall); being allowed to mark the ball on the green was introduced in 1960 by the R&A.

The golf clubs in the 60’s were a challenge. For starters there wasn’t that much variety. Slazenger, Spalding, Wilson were pretty much it in SE Qld.The woods were persimmon, laminated or molded plastic with small heads and steel shafts.The irons were blades with steel shafts 25 mm shorter than today’s iron shafts. A standard 5-iron shaft in the 60’s was 37 inches, today it is 38 inches. The sweet spot in the irons was towards the hosel rather than in the centre of the blade. Also the lofts were much weaker. Sand irons were mostly a dual wedge with a sharp leading edge with a deep flange. Putters were blade putters without perimeter weighting. The hosel length determined the location of the sweet spot. A longer hosel had the sweet spot more towards the hosel.



I would say no and the average golfer today no better than their counter part 50 years. With all the equipment and course conditions, golfers these days of all levels just play a different game.

I think this discussion is like trying to figure out if a League player 50years ago is better than today. Given the same competition, diet and training etc, a good player back then would be a good one now.

[Coldtopper]

What are couch fairways and pure bent greens? Look forward to St Andrews Beach where if you turn one over they go 300+. You just need droughts to experience similar conditions.

[oldracer]

I would think a club golfer 50 years ago had more time to practice and play, far less demands on their time in those days

[PerryGroves]

I would think a club golfer 50 years ago had more time to practice and play, far less demands on their time in those days

The same club golfer 50 years ago worked longer hours (perhaps up to 10 on average) and many worked Saturday mornings, they also had more children.

[Hatchman]

Too hard and unfair to compare. Too many variables have under gone significant changes.

The quality and condition of courses is better now.
The technology of the equipment (clubs and ball) has changed so much.
Physical condition of people in General has improved also (stats say we're living longer)
The availability to learn and train is much more accessible now also.

The only way to put it to the test would be for current people to play for a period of time with old tech balls and clubs on an average condition golf course and see what sort of score they shoot.