Is the short game now better than it's ever been?

sickyspider

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
Location
London, UK
Handicap
Management
I was thinking about this the other day when contemplating buying a lob wedge. Nowadays it is common for both amateurs and pros to have 3 or 4 wedges compared to having just 2 back in the day. My understanding is that the old PW was 48-50 and the SW about 54-56. Despite playing only 2 wedges players like Seve performed magic with them and going way back 50-60 years, the likes of Paul Runyan were deadly inside of a 100 yards.

So with all the groove technology, milled faces, bounce and loft options that we take for granted today, are we actually any better at the short game than our predecessors? Is there historical PGA data for sand saves, up and downs made etc, to perhaps make some form of comparison to current standards of play?

P.S. Let's not forget the ball technology too!
 
I think pga.com has some statistical information available, but I would be interested in hearing omre about this. I remember sitting with my grandfather watching nicklaus, seve, and payne stewart create magic around the green.
 
I don't know that it is better as the average amateur score hasn't really dropped in the last 40 years or so (might even be longer). That said I do think the equipment is better than ever
 
I've always played with 2, and actually have gone more to one this last year (50), but I will be hitting three in my Bridgestone bag, so it would be interesting to see the change.
 
Its a hard thing to measure because as tools have improved greatly, short game skills from average golfers have not necessarily. More choices to make things easier has also added more thinking. Add to that harder courses, more hazards and faster greens and you have something that is truly hard to measure.
 
I think the likes of bobby Jones and Ben Hogan would be well in front of the counterparts of today.

I think the short game was better back in the day. Bunkers were far more penal than today's bunkers. Greens were slicker (if dried out) since this was before irrigation. The game was harder back then and guys still shot 66's or better

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk
 
Better? Different eras, different challenges. Greens are better maintained, irrigation a given. The equipment has changed a great deal. I think conditions would have varied wildly from week to week back then.
Target golf, throwing it high and spinning it to a pin, I think is more common now. I do think that the overall level of the short game among, say, the tour has gotten better...just like overall driving and almost everything else.
 
I think the likes of bobby Jones and Ben Hogan would be well in front of the counterparts of today.

I think the short game was better back in the day. Bunkers were far more penal than today's bunkers. Greens were slicker (if dried out) since this was before irrigation. The game was harder back then and guys still shot 66's or better

I'm not sure the greens were slicker. They didn't have the technology back then to mow the greens down to peach fuzz height like we do today. They also didn't have the advanced grass strains we do today which can withstand the stress at such low heights.

As in all things, some look back fondly on yesteryear and declare that everything was just better. There's an interview segment that plays repeatedly on XM PGA Tour radio at night with Lee Trevino talking about how golf course designers are ruining the game by making the courses too hard. In the same breath he declares that golf has gotten too easy and there are no shotmakers left.

While I agree with Lee that the game has fundamentally changed to one requiring more carry and height, I don't think because players hit it long and high makes them worse golfers than those who grew up playing bump-and-runs in the dirt. I'm not sure Lee Trevino in his prime could hang with Tiger in his prime, though his quote insinuates that the golfers of his era were better.

Basically I think the pros quickly adapt to whatever conditions they face. Given some of the tracks Lee used to play, today's player would quickly adapt their game and play more of the type of shots that impress Lee Trevino. I think today's pro is just as good at playing the modern more difficult course as the pros in Trevino's youth were at playing the easier, more "down-to-earth" courses.
 
I think the likes of bobby Jones and Ben Hogan would be well in front of the counterparts of today.

I think the short game was better back in the day. Bunkers were far more penal than today's bunkers. Greens were slicker (if dried out) since this was before irrigation. The game was harder back then and guys still shot 66's or better

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk

I disagree with a good chunk of this. The game wasn't harder back then, most of the guys just weren't as good as the players are now. There wasn't video technology and launch monitors. I assume there was as much thought paid to groove depth and spacing. There wasn't as much science back then. The players now are much more mechanical, save for a select few. But look at the players with good short games, they are as good as there have ever been.

The cream is still at the top.
 
The game was harder back then. Thins weren't smooth, greens were bumpy.

Not to mention equipment has come a long way.


TTing
 
I'm not sure the greens were slicker. They didn't have the technology back then to mow the greens down to peach fuzz height like we do today. They also didn't have the advanced grass strains we do today which can withstand the stress at such low heights.

As in all things, some look back fondly on yesteryear and declare that everything was just better. There's an interview segment that plays repeatedly on XM PGA Tour radio at night with Lee Trevino talking about how golf course designers are ruining the game by making the courses too hard. In the same breath he declares that golf has gotten too easy and there are no shotmakers left.

While I agree with Lee that the game has fundamentally changed to one requiring more carry and height, I don't think because players hit it long and high makes them worse golfers than those who grew up playing bump-and-runs in the dirt. I'm not sure Lee Trevino in his prime could hang with Tiger in his prime, though his quote insinuates that the golfers of his era were better.

Basically I think the pros quickly adapt to whatever conditions they face. Given some of the tracks Lee used to play, today's player would quickly adapt their game and play more of the type of shots that impress Lee Trevino. I think today's pro is just as good at playing the modern more difficult course as the pros in Trevino's youth were at playing the easier, more "down-to-earth" courses.

No watering systems to irrigate fairways or greens. Cutting greens I'll agree but they rolled greens back then so that's stayed the same. With no water on dry rolled greens the greens would be faster in yesteryear.

Its easy to say the Palmer to Watson era was better crop of players as you have more guys with multiple majors. (+4)
But again you have just more players with majors in the current era. But fewer repeaters.

But on topic, the touch of the old timers with lesser equipment most notably the ball was more impressive.

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk
 
I disagree with a good chunk of this. The game wasn't harder back then, most of the guys just weren't as good as the players are now. There wasn't video technology and launch monitors. I assume there was as much thought paid to groove depth and spacing. There wasn't as much science back then. The players now are much more mechanical, save for a select few. But look at the players with good short games, they are as good as there have ever been.

The cream is still at the top.
There are more good players now overall but less great players.

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk
 
I don't think you're right. Well, when in Rome.

Palmer Trevino Nicklaus Watson Player Seve Irwin Floyd Venturi Miller drawing a blank in others

Current era Woods, Mickleson recently, Singh had his spurts, Els to an extent, Quick spurt by Harrington. McElroy it seems.


Just saying the talent is more spread less superstars and more stars

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk
 
Palmer Trevino Nicklaus Watson Player Seve Irwin Floyd Venturi Miller drawing a blank in others

Current era Woods, Mickleson recently, Singh had his spurts, Els to an extent, Quick spurt by Harrington. McElroy it seems.


Just saying the talent is more spread less superstars and more stars

I take the opposite stand. There are fewer guys winning multiple majors because there are some many more fantastic players. I believe that most of today's players could win multiple majors in the eras past. There might have been more natural talent then, today's golfers are much more groomed and molded. But overall, I think that the talent is better overall now.
 
I carry 4 and that's including my PW. Even though I rarely use the 52* unless I need a really low bump and run. But I like all my wedges. I've contemplated getting another hybrid or a 5 wood, but in my game I need the extra wedge more. Kinda makes me mad when people talk smack about carrying more wedges lol.
 
You probably saw a lot more creativity back then. I mean, you can look at the game 60 + years ago, where you weren't allowed to clean your ball off even when on the green and had to some time putt over balls between you and the hole. The lack of technology meant these guys were finding different ways to finesse their short game. This was evident even as recent as 15 years ago.

Like most things in golf, it's tough to judge whether the short game is better now. I will say it should be, with the teaching industry and club technology much bigger nowdadays. But with different conditions and equipment in both eras, I couldn't say one way or another for certain.
 
I take the opposite stand. There are fewer guys winning multiple majors because there are some many more fantastic players. I believe that most of today's players could win multiple majors in the eras past. There might have been more natural talent then, today's golfers are much more groomed and molded. But overall, I think that the talent is better overall now.

Todays players being (as you say) much more groomed and molded. I assume alot has to do with advancements in technology in club fitting, the equipment to analize it all, amounts of shafts and etc available, the balls, etc...

I'd have to ask just how much they might win if they palyed against them without the same available tech and assistance we have today. But then I'd also have to ask, How would the great old timers be stacking up against todays great golfers if we gave them all the advantages of today?

I dont think we'd could ever know this answer. I guess the only thing we can say for sure is that they are from different era's and leave it at that.
 
I was thinking about this the other day when contemplating buying a lob wedge. Nowadays it is common for both amateurs and pros to have 3 or 4 wedges compared to having just 2 back in the day. My understanding is that the old PW was 48-50 and the SW about 54-56. Despite playing only 2 wedges players like Seve performed magic with them and going way back 50-60 years, the likes of Paul Runyan were deadly inside of a 100 yards.

So with all the groove technology, milled faces, bounce and loft options that we take for granted today, are we actually any better at the short game than our predecessors? Is there historical PGA data for sand saves, up and downs made etc, to perhaps make some form of comparison to current standards of play?

P.S. Let's not forget the ball technology too!

You have to keep in mind that the general club lofts have changed enough that today's PW is about the same as yesterday's 9I. Most players these days don't even count the PW as a wedge, despite the name. My PW is 47°, GW is 51°. I have a 54° and 56° SW, but the 56 is used as my loft wedge and 54 is exclusively for sand play. I don't carry anything higher. My 54° Vokey and 56° Cleveland are the only ones with the old grooves, and that is just because I bought them before the rule change. I wouldn't go out of my way looking for one - I really haven't seen that the grooves have made any difference in my game. My AP-2 irons out to the GW were all V-grooves even before the rule was changed.
 
Back
Top