We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Is golf getting overly complicated?

Six4three5

Six4three5

Tour Star...Layin' Up!
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
12
Location
LeRoy, NY
Handicap
2.5 GHIN
With my recent thread on fittings and some of the responses, it has gotten me thinking. Is golf getting overly complicated? Do we as golfers get caught up in trying to chase the "optimal" numbers? The talk in my previous thread discussed fittings and levels of fittings and the general consensus was that the lie, length, and loft was pretty much the only things that would make an immediate difference good or bad. The other night I was watching "Golf's Greatest Rounds" on the Golf Channel and it was the 99 US Open. Looking at their equipment it really made me wonder what kind of "fittings" the players back then went through. They didn't have things like "Trackman" or "FlightScope" or launch monitors to my knowledge, did they go all by just feel? Whatever felt good they went with? Did they go by just seeing things from themselves? Meaning head to the range with "Manufacturer X" and hit their different offerings and say "I liked the ball flight on this club the best I'm going to game this one."

Sometimes I definitely catch myself over thinking numbers and wondering about what different clubs would do for me and my game...or lack of! lol!

I guess just a few questions I have is are we making the game overly complicated? Should we focus more on just going out and playing/practicing to get better vs trying to find the perfect equipment? What are your thoughts THP?
 
I would say yes, many are getting too hung up on their Trackman numbers, especially with their drivers. And for what? For all the improvements in equipment, ball, shaft, and fitting optimization in the last decade, average driving distance on the professional tours is basically flat!

DistanceStats.jpg
 
I would have to say yes, also seeing most manufacturers are saying club x will gain you 15 yards. Now add together all the technology in clubs, shafts and golf balls you have quite a few confused golfers. I spoke with a new golfer on the range this week. He bought all new equipment at a local golf store which sold him the "latest and greatest". Which I think is wrong to take advantage of new golfers like that. Finding him the correct fitted golf club for him should be the first priority. Forgiving and easy to hit should be what should be offered. Sold him a strong 3 wood insted on a driver for a new golfer is not right. He could barely get the ball more then 5 feet off the ground. I offered tips to him to improve on. But also informed him of other club options best suited for him.

Sent from my SGH-I257M using Tapatalk
 
I definitely agree. I sat in the golf shop one slow day and proceeded to hit driver after driver looking for the perfect launch angle and spin rate. Tinkered with at least 15 different shafts and head combos. Finally got as close to optimal as I could bought the club and I hated it. Ended up going back to my stock stiff shaft optiforce lol.

I won't mention the driver I bought but I nicknamed it slice master. I created so much side spin and I started changing my swing just to hit it well.
 
I think it's way over complicated, many people are relying on the numbers to cure swing faults and they think it will make a significant difference in their game or scores and It won't for most of us but, but Once you get to the point in your game where you understand and see exactly what those numbers do? I think you are in a position to utilize that resource.
 
I don't know if I would say overly complicated. I usually say that more information is a good thing. But we as amateurs don't really process that information well. I am guilty of chasing numbers. But that isn't the fault of the devices giving me launch readouts.
 
Let me be the first to say no :)

I'll try to explain:
Now we have the doppler radar (flightscope/trackman) we know much more about the way we strike the ball. About swingspeed, path, trajectory, launch angles, spin and more. Somewhere in the last year we found out that the fundamentals of the flight of the ball as we knew them where flawed. This was, if I recall correctly, due to trackman data.

We also see that the sport is becoming more of and athletes sport, with good physique, with balanced training (cardio and muscle) and a better understanding of what food and drinks do on the course. Yes it is a lot to take in, yes it is a lot of work and yes it can be bothersome. But we also see that all this data is being used in the advantage of the players. Granted, in favor of the pro's and the die-hards, but you have to start somewhere. :)

With data in hand we can make choices based on facts and less on feel. We're able to not only see ballflight change, but also factually check if it is improving. We can measure things like true-lie (at moment of impact), the angle of attack both horizontally and vertically, the amount of load we get on a shaft and exactly how stiff a shaft should be, where the kick- or bendpoint should be etc. Once you have a swing that is repeatable and you're quite consistent you can use this all to gain serious advantage. But you'll have to be a pretty serious player to do so.


On the other hand: for many amateurs much of the data that can be gathered is nearly useless. If your swing is inconsistent, if it's not easily repeatable the data is inconsistent too. So there's no (f)actual data to really rely on. And I'm thinking there are many amateurs that try to rely on data that isn't consistent and thus no basis to build upon. :)
 
tahoebum said:
I would say yes, many are getting too hung up on their Trackman numbers, especially with their drivers. And for what? For all the improvements in equipment, ball, shaft, and fitting optimization in the last decade, average driving distance on the professional tours is basically flat!

DistanceStats.jpg
Click to expand...

One problem with that graph. None of us are tour players. It is certainly possible, that while the top stays static, the bottom can be brought up through technology.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I can see the thought process. I would find it very easy to get cought up in the numbers if I let myself.

Personally I tend to worry about ball contact and my swing more tjan I worry about the technical numbers. Distance and such are just byproducts of good fundamentals imo. Plus the last thing I need to get obsessed with are technical numbers, id overload my brain.
 
Floor-is said:
Let me be the first to say no :)

I'll try to explain:
Now we have the doppler radar (flightscope/trackman) we know much more about the way we strike the ball. About swingspeed, path, trajectory, launch angles, spin and more. Somewhere in the last year we found out that the fundamentals of the flight of the ball as we knew them where flawed. This was, if I recall correctly, due to trackman data.

We also see that the sport is becoming more of and athletes sport, with good physique, with balanced training (cardio and muscle) and a better understanding of what food and drinks do on the course. Yes it is a lot to take in, yes it is a lot of work and yes it can be bothersome. But we also see that all this data is being used in the advantage of the players. Granted, in favor of the pro's and the die-hards, but you have to start somewhere. :)

With data in hand we can make choices based on facts and less on feel. We're able to not only see ballflight change, but also factually check if it is improving. We can measure things like true-lie (at moment of impact), the angle of attack both horizontally and vertically, the amount of load we get on a shaft and exactly how stiff a shaft should be, where the kick- or bendpoint should be etc. Once you have a swing that is repeatable and you're quite consistent you can use this all to gain serious advantage. But you'll have to be a pretty serious player to do so.


On the other hand: for many amateurs much of the data that can be gathered is nearly useless. If your swing is inconsistent, if it's not easily repeatable the data is inconsistent too. So there's no (f)actual data to really rely on. And I'm thinking there are many amateurs that try to rely on data that isn't consistent and thus no basis to build upon. :)
Click to expand...

You say a lot here and what you say makes good sense imo but the fact of how much you say to even begin with shows that it is complicated.

Not just to you but to anyone i say I dont think golf became complicated, I think it always was. Even before todays technology there were always books and info out there and so many diferent opinions on what is the correct thing for this, that, and the other thing.

But you mention the physical swing itself as having to be sound in the first place in order to even gain any advantages modern tech can give one and while very trure that in itself is very complictaed. Can be way over anylized even before modern tech and would always clutter the head with way too much thought.
So imo it always was complictaed. The more thought one puts into it the morwe complictaed it is regardless of the era in whch one plays or has played. The more we understand the better off we are but also the worse off we can be. Just look at tiger and his swing changes but not for the better. At least for now. Over complicating can be both harmful and also advantageous at any level. But I think its already always been very complicated but just depends on how complicated one wishes to make it.
 
So my answer "no" to the question 'getting overly complimactrd' still stands :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think "Yes". IMO golf at it's core is about fundamentals and confidence. Trackman, Fitting, etc won't replace lessons and if you have a club you just love - even if it only gives you marginal #s - you should use it. Anything that creates doubt is going to cause your game to suffer.
 
Yes yes and yes a million percent . Online lessons , online golf swing feelings , online golf theories./ cameras swing devices.. Etc Too much info , too little time to Implement . My saying applies here " too many chiefs , not enough Indians " . Golf was simpler in the 1980's and 90's. And I personally think the instruction was better and more to the point . All the teachers were big in ball flight analysis .. Now it is about a look and scores really haven't got better .. Imo

maybe learning a swing from ball flight only is the way to go ? Did wonders for this old man
 
It sure feels like there is an elevated expectation because of the radar technologies. But yet not enough understanding what those numbers mean.


Too many golfers, it feels like, expect a trackman and a fitting to make them scratch overnight. That is not the technologies fault.
 
For me, probably yes. I think length, loft and lie will be my primary focus until I am MUCH better as a golfer. Pursuing the numbers as a place from which to move forward wasn't the best thing for me. There most certainly is a place for them, but not for me right now.

Just one less thing to worry about too!

JM
 
It's only more complicated if you let it get that way. Golfers today have access to so much more information than they did 10-15 years ago, but it's what they do with that information that matters. For example, someone can get on a Trackman and hit balls but if they have no idea what the numbers are telling them, then what is the benefit of that?

On the other hand, I think that a golfer can get a tremendous benefit from taking the information that is out there and working with the right people. For example, say that there's a guy that lives in a rural area and the nearest golf pro is 60 miles away. That guy in the past probably had to learn things on his own from hitting balls. Now, that guy can take a video of his swing and get instruction from a pro via tools like Golf Channel Swingfix, and he can improve that way. It's a huge benefit as compared to the past.

To the OP, I get what you're saying, and I might be threadjacking a bit, but I just don't understand how some golfers think that advances in technology and having more information available to you is a bad thing. It's like the golfers that don't think GPS devices or rangefinders make the game better, or the people that say "I don't trust launch monitors, I just want to see my ballflight." A golf pro on Twitter posted something the other day to this effect: would you want to see a doctor that relied on old technology where penicillin was the only antibiotic available, or a doctor with access to the latest and greatest? I would think the same applies to golf, but there are way too many golfers with their head in the sand, IMO.
 
Yes. This is why I am reading Ben Hogan's Five Lessons. All you need imo, along with lessons. My driver fitting wasn't screaming Big Bertha, but I hit it on the range, liked it, and bought it. Next.
 
I would say that if 99.9% of the people who have spent $1500+ on a custom set of clubs fitted on Trackman et. al. took those clubs back in time and challenged Hogan, Nelson, Venturi, Burke, ect. to a match, allowing the old school guys to only use the technology of that era, 99.9% of those custom fitted golfers would get their a$$es kicked. If you are expecting technology to solve your golfing woes, you are going to be very disappointed. Golf is a feel game and regardless of what trackman says, your sense of timing and feel changes daily and sometimes hourly. The ability to adapt to that and to overcome physical, mental and environmental variables is what makes one a good golfer. Now if you can hit the ball off of the center of the club face and control your trajectory and spin fairly well, then trackman could be an invaluable tool in dialing in your club construction. But if you can't break 90 on a regular basis, forget about the numbers and go learn how to hit a ball off of the center of the club face. Any club face. It truly doesn't matter.
 
Yes I think it is, but as Ary said you have control of if it does for you. I think on the club side it is very apparent that it has gotten too complicated, but most still don't get fit for their clubs. On the improvement side again most have not used trackman or flight scope with lrssons. I do think on the teaching/learning side too many golfers use those and their instructors as crutches and don't learn enough about their swing and how subtle changes in their swing lead to changes in ball flight. It seems to easy to just get another lesson. While I think golfers should take lessons, be more interactive with your instructor.
 
I don't know, but I think the majority of golfers don't get fit, don't use launch monitors and don't buy new clubs as often as "we" do.

It's only complicated if we make it complicated.
 
Castor Hades said:
I don't know, but I think the majority of golfers don't get fit, don't use launch monitors and don't buy new clubs as often as "we" do.

It's only complicated if we make it complicated.
Click to expand...

That's some Norseman Truth right there
 
Funny enough I was thinking about that this weekend. I have become so reliant on GPS for yardages that I forget to just play. We had a forecaddie this past weekend and I forgot my GPS watch. I found myself sitting there waiting for yardages and getting in my head, rather than just hitting the shot. For the first 15-20 years of playing golf I never had GPS. I relied on the Blue, White, and Red stakes and just hit my shot.
 
DevRickus said:
Funny enough I was thinking about that this weekend. I have become so reliant on GPS for yardages that I forget to just play. We had a forecaddie this past weekend and I forgot my GPS watch. I found myself sitting there waiting for yardages and getting in my head, rather than just hitting the shot. For the first 15-20 years of playing golf I never had GPS. I relied on the Blue, White, and Red stakes and just hit my shot.
Click to expand...

I bet u played better and faster back than ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top