1/15/25

Ryan Ruffels Played a Classic Golf Course with Hickories

A Q&A with Ryan Ruffels about his experience playing an Australian Sandbelt gem with retro equipment

by

Ryan Ruffels is a 26-year-old Australian professional golfer. He is also a co-owner of the course record (63) at his home course, Victoria Golf Club, a historic Australian Sandbelt course that Alister MacKenzie is credited with co-designing.

Back in December, Ruffels played nine holes at Victoria, only this time he played with hickory clubs instead of modern equipment. I caught up with Ryan to discuss that experience and what he learned from playing a historic Sandbelt golf course with hickories.

Note: Stay tuned to Ryan’s YouTube channel for the full video of his day, which will include every shot he hit, along with the history of the golf course and details on the equipment he used.

Joseph: Can you talk through what was in the bag on the day you played with hickories? And had you ever played with hickories before?

Ryan: We played with about seven clubs each I believe, so I had a driver, a smaller wood that’s not the same as a 5-wood/7-wood – it was more of just a lofted small wood. I had what Clayts (Mike Clayton) kept referring to as a 5-iron or 4-iron. Then I had the equivalent of like a 7-iron. It was really interesting, I’d have to get you the name of this club, but I had this club that was banned illegal after it was made in the 1920s. But it had basically a concave face on it and so essentially if you hit off the toe, the spin brings it back to the middle. If you hit it in the heel, the spin also brings it back to the middle. It was quite innovative in its time, so I had one of those that I only used a couple of times, a few wedges and then basically like a persimmon putter or hickory putter.

No, I’d never played – well I’ve played persimmon – Clayts was a mentor to me growing up, so he’s encouraged me to go out sometimes with persimmon clubs and play nine holes so I’ve done that, but hickory is a whole different thing. Especially when you mix in, like the softest ball we could find was a balata, which I know is not quite what they used with hickory, but it was as soft as we’re going to find. We didn’t have wound balls or anything of that nature. It was a really interesting experience.

Can you give more detail on the driver you used?

It’d be hard to tell you any sort of loft, but the size was way smaller than any 3-wood that I’ve ever hit. Clayts said this: it wasn’t as simple back in the day as “I’ll buy this one in 10 degrees or I’ll buy this one in 11 degrees.” You kept hitting drivers until you found one you liked. And whoever had the one I used – it was a little bit hooded, a little bit closed off, and it had the screws obviously in the center of the face with a metal plate underneath. And the grips, basically just wound cowhide grips, more or less, that were falling apart, but they’ve done a really good job refurbishing them. Yeah, it was just very interesting with the hickory shafts.

I watched a video on your YouTube channel outlining your stock yardages with modern equipment. You said a 7-iron is generally a 190-yard stock shot and then a cruising driver goes about 305-310. With the hickory setup, you mentioned you had something close to a 7-iron and then you obviously also had a driver. Can you estimate what your stock numbers would be with those two clubs in that set?

It was interesting, I went in with the predisposition that the ball was going to go nowhere. Obviously, it doesn’t go nearly as far as it does with modern equipment, but I could hit the ball farther than I thought I would, so I started out hitting it super smooth like “I’m just gonna make contact,” and then I was like “Hang on, I think I’ve got a little bit more, a little bit more.” And so probably towards the end, I was hitting drivers 265-270 yards. Not carry, total distance. With probably 15-20 yards of roll there.

The flight is very different than what we’re used to nowadays. It’s very low and penetrating. From a design perspective, I have a very different appreciation for the Sandbelt seeing the flight I had to play the shots with. You can understand the design a lot better when you play with these types of clubs. And then I would say 7-iron probably carried – well it’s a hard one because golf with these clubs is so much more feel-based. Like I was using the 7-iron anywhere from 110-160 yards, just depending on the shot, the pin, the wind, just so many different factors. So if you want to split the difference and call it 130-140 yards, sure. But, Clayts was caddying for me, and he was very much like “Oh back right pin, well if you use this lower-lofted iron, you can shape it in and get it rolling into that pin” as opposed to “Oh this is 165, it’s a 7-iron number, period.” So it’s just a completely different style of golf. I’m not sure I could give you a stock number, especially with an iron.

You mentioned two things that I want to zero in on. When you say it’s a lower, more penetrating ball flight, can you explain why to somebody who’s never played with that equipment? They might think you could just learn how to rip the high-launch, low-spin shots with the old equipment. So why do you have to play a lower, more penetrating ball flight with the hickories?

Well, a couple of things. First, equipment these days is specifically designed for high-launch, low-spin to get maximum carry, maximum distance, be extremely stable in the wind – all these different things. So from an equipment standpoint, the modern ball and club is designed to go high with low spin while the old equipment is designed – I bet in their time it wasn’t designed intentionally to be low flight with high spin – but that’s where the technology was. So that ball spins a ton more. And when the ball spins more, it’s going to start lower, and it’s going to rise – that’s the flight you’re going to get. And the way you have to hit the clubs, it’s not like hitting 5 degrees up on it, hitting 4 degrees up on it, trying to launch it into the sky. It’s a game of control, so I felt like I kind of had to cover the ball and pinch it out there. When you watch these old tapes of some of the old Opens, Peter Thomson even earlier, you can definitely see a lot of abbreviated finishes, a lot of punchy-looking shots, little short backswings with little punchy follow throughs. And that’s what I felt like you had to play.

Why? Why not just hit up on it and launch it? Can you elaborate on why that doesn’t work and why it’s necessary to shape the ball a little bit more?

Because the spin keeps the direction back into play. As soon as I tried to launch it high, I lost complete control over the start line and the spin back to the center of the fairway versus when I kind of cover it, I could be like “Ok, I’m going to make sure this ball has a little tail on it like a fade,” so I would aim up the left and kind of pinch it out there low with a ton of spin to get it curving back into the fairway and vice versa the other way.

And the ball spins so much that if there’s any wind whatsoever and the ball gets up in the air, it’s going to get eaten up like we don’t know about with modern equipment. As much as we like to say “Yeah, when you go to the Open you have to flight shots”, ok, yeah a little but not to this extent. With this equipment, if I had a 140-yard shot into a 20-mph wind, if I hit a normal shot, I would nearly say I probably don’t have a club in the bag to get there with the wrong flight. And that’s what I find really interesting. Like I could hit a driver with the wrong flight into the wind, and there’s potential that it spins out and has no chance of getting there. Versus I could probably get there with a 5-iron with the proper flight.

So I would say the curve back into the fairway, that’s how you control that golf ball, that’s how you control those clubs. And then also the wind is another reason.

I want to get into some of the specifics of the round you played. So Victoria Golf Club looks like it can play 6,800-6,900 yards from the back tees. Roughly what distances did you play?

We had a scorecard from the late ‘40s/early ‘50s. What really surprised me is that the yardages on that scorecard were basically the same as they are now, minus maybe 1-2 extended tees a little farther back. The yardages were more or less the same as they are today. It shows that not many of these Sandbelt courses have really changed a ton from when they were built; we’re just playing them very differently. So from a design perspective, they’re played completely differently from how they’re intended, but the tees we play every day are basically the original. I have the course record at Victoria, I’ve played it all my life. I don’t necessarily classify it as a super hard golf course, especially with it being my home course. But with the hickories I went out there, and I was like “Oh my god, this is the hardest golf course in the world.” If they legitimately played these tees with these clubs, this is an outrageously challenging golf course. I thought we were going to have some way-forward tee that I could still score from. No, it’s 6,800-6,900 yards with a completely different set of tools.

What’s your course record?

63.

Ok, I’m sure it’s hard to estimate a score if you’d played identically on that day but instead with old equipment, but what do you think is a realistic low score at Victoria using the old equipment stack you used with Mike Clayton?

All right, so I shot 40 for nine holes off the back tees, but it took me five holes to get used to the equipment. I closed really well – I just had to get the hang of it for the last four holes. I might’ve played the last four in 1-under par or something. I have no doubt that great players would learn how to play with this equipment. I told Clayts, “It’s a pity we’re not playing another nine because I’m really getting the hang of this.”

I think if you gave me a couple weeks to practice with that equipment, and if I was playing in something consequential, I’d say I could get it around par? I don’t think that’d be unrealistic; I think I could sneak it in under par on a good day. There’s a lot of niche shots with the short-game clubs and the driver, but once you get the hang of those, it’s not impossible to shoot under par. You just have to be a great player that’s very skilled and has a good day, which is how it should be.

Is 67 in play?

On a great day, yes. I think it is. If you start to get the hang of that driver, you’re punching it up the entrances to all the greens so that you’re always in the right spot when you miss it to putt up the green or hit a little bump and run. Tough, but possible. I’d say if I shot 68 with the old equipment, that’d probably be the equivalent of my 63 with my own modern clubs, which is the course record.

Ok, holes 17 and 18 are both long holes. At what distance did you play those holes and can you talk us through the shots you had to hit?

That’s when I started to play pretty well, so those are good to talk about. On 17 we played from 550-560 yards or so. I flushed a driver straight up the middle, followed by another driver (off the deck) which was flighted and really strong. And then a 7-iron, not a full one, just kind of chasing one up the green to maybe 30 feet. But it’s different because I’m coming into the green from 115 yards to a little tucked pin. I could fit a modern wedge in there, but you can’t really fit an old 7-iron in there. I had to hit it up the entrance to the green and then putt across.

And then 18, I smoked a driver. It’s a par-5 with an uphill tee shot and then a downhill second shot. And the fairway is kind of a reverse saucer that slopes off along all the edges. I normally can fly it over the hill and onto the downslope on the other side. With the old driver, I hit it about halfway up the hill – it was a completely different drive, a completely different hole.

Then I hit another driver off the deck from about 250-260. And I actually got that one all the way on the green. But the shot that I had to play was sick. It was so much fun the way I had to play that hole.

What kind of shot did you have to hit in? 

There’s a cross bunker that is about 40 yards in front of the green. I’ve been a member there 15 years, I don’t think I’ve ever hit it in that cross bunker before. This time I’m looking at the cross bunker and it’s actually in play. The original design is that if you carry that, everything feeds down onto the green.

So I was on an upslope, the pin is in the front, and I hit this bullet cut that started just left of the green, carried the cross bunker, and trickled down to the front of the green.

Like I said earlier, you get such an appreciation for Alister MacKenzie and for Sandbelt courses when you play it that way. You start to understand the design, the intention of the architect, the way the hole was supposed to be played so much better than the way I’m used to playing it every day.

After the experience, you tweeted “It was amazing how much fun that was once I started to figure it out. Tons of skill required and about 10x as many shot options.” If somebody challenged you and said, “Well you still have those shot options with modern equipment,” explain how there are more shot options with the old equipment.

It’s not even the options, it’s the necessity to use those options. Sure, I could play a bunch of different shots with my modern clubs these days – I would argue you can’t play all the shots that you can play with old equipment – but you can play a whole bunch of different shots with modern equipment. You don’t need to, though. That’s the difference. These new golf balls, they’re so firm, so stable in the wind, you lose the benefit of the modern ball by trying different types of shots. You might as well stick to the stock shots that you practice because the environment doesn’t matter as much to the modern ball.

There are very small adjustments you have to make these days versus huge adjustments you have to make with these (old) clubs. For example, flop shots are basically impossible, the wedges don’t have enough bounce on them – they’re just going to get stuck in the grass. So every time you miss a green, you’re looking low before you’re looking high. You’re looking at putters, you’re looking at irons, to scrape along the ground. You’re never grabbing your wedge to hit a normal little chip unless there’s a bunker in the way.

You’re not coming into the greens with a big, high-towering ball flight, so you have to figure out how to hit the ball into the pin whether that’s the right shape or flight or some sort of spin. There’s a lot more thought – it’s more of a chess match between yourself and the golf course than it is nowadays where, regardless of the pin, it’s kind of one club fits all, you can make the club work with a draw or a fade or a little higher or little lower. There’s no need to do much more beyond that versus what you need to do with old equipment.

Ryan, you’ve been appointed czar of golf. What are the equipment regulations you’d like to wave a wand and implement?

I come from a perspective where I love and appreciate great design. I think that’s brought up in me growing up in that part of the world. The design element is very special to me, so especially after this experience, I’d love to see some sort of cap on where things are now. I think asking to go backwards to equipment that we used to use might be too tall of an ask, but I’d like to stop it where it’s at.

And I would love a few times a year to play – we don’t even need to go as extreme as hickories – I’d love to go play that course with like a 4-iron and down. Even something as simple as that. Or use a golf ball that’s super spinny that I would never use in a tournament. I’d love to see an event or a few events that have that kind of structure. If you wanted to do hickory, great. But I want to see a tournament around these classic golf courses where the golf course matters – where it’s not just getting eaten up by today’s equipment. I played Cypress Point on a beautiful day and I was like, “yeah without wind here – it’s a beautiful course and great property – but it’s not that hard with modern equipment.” The par 5s are driver-wedges, a couple drivable par 4s, the par 3s aren’t super long.

It loses its real character, which happens in the Sandbelt too, so I’d love to see a cap on where things are now. I’m probably not super popular amongst my peers saying that. I just can’t see a world where equipment goes backwards, but I’d like to stop it now. Golf courses have a little room to adjust but not a ton of room to adjust if we keep going.

Riviera is a golf course, for me, where I sometimes get blowback for saying it’s overrated. I only mean overrated with respect to how it tests professional golfers. It’s just not anywhere close to the test with modern equipment that it’s supposed to be.

Same with Pebble Beach, same with any of these classic courses. You certainly see it on the Sandbelt. When I play Royal Melbourne, they have to trick it up as much as they can these days to try to give it some relevancy because it’s 6,800 yards with super-wide fairways and massive greens. There’s not a lot of defense if the wind isn’t blowing. It’s a shame, from my perspective, and I’d like to see something done about it. But if we’re looking for something to actually happen moving forward, going backwards is probably not going to happen. Some want the ball to go farther, some want it to go shorter. Let’s meet in the middle and stop it where it’s at.

If we were to go all the way back and require professional golfers to use hickories, what kind of players would benefit from that? How do you think the list of the best golfers in the world might change and which skill sets would be rewarded by going back to old equipment?

I think your current top players are still your current top players. Modern equipment makes the fields deeper. I think modern equipment gives the mid-level Tour player a closer baseline to someone like Rory McIlroy. But your Rorys and Schefflers and Rahms and Koepkas – they’re still going to be the best players in the world. In fact, I think that gap widens between those top players and the middle of the pack of the rest of the Tour.

I think athletic ability would start to play more of a role, hand-eye coordination, the fine skills of golf, the touch, the creativity, most of these top players have that already but the modern equipment squeezes them probably more than it squeezes the average tour player.

My intuition is that short game would become more important. You’d miss more greens and need more creativity around the greens. I’d expect a player like Jordan Spieth who likes to flight shots and has great short game to perform better relative to the field with old equipment. Do you agree with that?

Well, I think with the old equipment, full-swing technique isn’t as important. You’d have to figure it out yourself and be less reliant on cameras for swing positions and all these different things. You wouldn’t be on force plates trying to figure things out. You’d be trying to figure out for yourself how you make the golf ball or the driver work for you. I think golfers would need to be way more intuitive, therefore I think your super-technical ball strikers – sure they might adjust too. But if they kept in their current pursuit, I don’t think they’d have as much success as opposed to someone like Spieth who would find a way to poke his ball up to the green and then figure it out from up around the green. I think that would be very different.