Titleist golf ball study; Finally, some facts added to the debate

11314161819
19

Comments

  • tnordtnord  2320WRX Points: 54Handicap: +0.2Members Posts: 2,320 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #452
    i concede your point regarding spin axis, but not that "scooping" adds spin.



    can we all think about shots beyond just the driver?
    Posted:
    TaylorMade 2017 M1 440 Speeder Evolution 757x
    Titleist 917F3 13.5 Fuji Speeder Pro TS 84X
    Mizuno MP4 3-P X100
    SM7 50F 54M 58M S400
    Bettinardi BB1
    On -, @protrajT
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • UhitUhit  861WRX Points: 0Members Posts: 861
    Joined:  #453
    tnord wrote:


    i concede your point regarding spin axis, but not that "scooping" adds spin.



    can we all think about shots beyond just the driver?




    Maybe it is not the appropriate word for that strike technique...



    ...but if you let the club head overtake your hands through impact, and let the club head slide through the ball position, you are adding a lot of loft, which is adding spin.



    If you have ever played with a 64 degree wedge, you know, that you can literally slide through and under the ball, with next to no forward moving of the ball - similar to a flop shot.
    Posted:
  • ShilgyShilgy Phoenix 12241WRX Points: 1,377Handicap: 3.2Members Posts: 12,241 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #454
    Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how courses “have to” lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.



    I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they “must” move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?
    Posted:
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • goph3rgoph3r  257WRX Points: 22Members Posts: 257 Greens
    Joined:  #455
    Kudos to Titleist on making a biased powerpoint. So basically, all thats changed is the golfer's fitness level and therefore we should not allow people to workout anymore and ban protein from professional player diets.
    Posted:
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    TM RBZ Stage2 Driver
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Callaway GBB Epic 7 Wood
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Mizuno JPX Tour 4-9
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Mizuno T7 46*,54*,58*,62*
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Wilson 1960s 8843-345
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
  • goph3rgoph3r  257WRX Points: 22Members Posts: 257 Greens
    Joined:  #456
    Shilgy wrote:


    Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how courses “have to” lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.



    I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they “must” move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?




    You're right, they dont move fences, they just make sure they cant use metal bats at professional level. Same thing as limiting golf equipment...
    Posted:
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    TM RBZ Stage2 Driver
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Callaway GBB Epic 7 Wood
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Mizuno JPX Tour 4-9
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Mizuno T7 46*,54*,58*,62*
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Wilson 1960s 8843-345
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf  3448WRX Points: 357Members Posts: 3,448 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #457
    Shilgy wrote:


    Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how courses “have to” lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.



    I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they “must” move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?




    A number of fields have actually moved their fences in to increase HR's for the home team. Baseball field dimensions are based on the type of baseball the home team hopes to play. Citi Field was built as a pitchers field initially, but the lack of HR's made winning and attracting power hitters difficult so they moved in the fences. Back in the day, the Yankees built their stadium with a short right field fence for Babe Ruth.



    The Sentry course was set up for long hitters. DJ hit a drive 430 yards but at least 80 yards was rollout down the hill.
    Posted:
    Driver - Home Callaway Epic Flash   Away Callaway Rogue Sub Zero 
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-SW   Away - Callaway Apex CF-19 5-SW
    Wedge - PXG 58* 
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • ShilgyShilgy Phoenix 12241WRX Points: 1,377Handicap: 3.2Members Posts: 12,241 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #458
    goph3r wrote:

    Shilgy wrote:


    Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how courses "have to" lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.



    I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they "must" move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?




    You're right, they dont move fences, they just make sure they cant use metal bats at professional level. Same thing as limiting golf equipment...
    They are hitting the ball 450+ feet with wood. Longer than ever before on a consistent basis. So the metal bat example is invalid. The metal bat ban is more of a safety issue for pitchers and infielders.
    Posted:
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Austin 6654WRX Points: 1,125Handicap: 8.7Members Posts: 6,654 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #459
    goph3r wrote:


    Kudos to Titleist on making a biased powerpoint. So basically, all thats changed is the golfer's fitness level and therefore we should not allow people to workout anymore and ban protein from professional player diets.




    Strange post. Did you read the report? They showed how several other factors have changed.
    Posted:
  • goph3rgoph3r  257WRX Points: 22Members Posts: 257 Greens
    Joined:  #460

    goph3r wrote:


    Kudos to Titleist on making a biased powerpoint. So basically, all thats changed is the golfer's fitness level and therefore we should not allow people to workout anymore and ban protein from professional player diets.




    Strange post. Did you read the report? They showed how several other factors have changed.




    Yep. Made sure to read it before posting anything. There arent very many factors. Golfer, club, ball, course. Course lengthening meant a race for more distance and that has been acheived and now everyone complains that the "driver" and "ball" are too long which is hogwash to limit the argument to just the driver when those same long drivers can use a 2 iron to hit 250yd+ shots. Jamie sadlowski may be an exception but he drives a 2 iron further than most tour player's can drive. So scaling back tour woods really isnt an option. Elite fitness is only going to get better. Making courses longer isn't an option, although they could redesign course hazards differently to make it more difficult to do the bomb it and recover strategy as well as they could tighten the out of bounds borders as a deterent from bombing it. Then theres the ball.
    Posted:
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    TM RBZ Stage2 Driver
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Callaway GBB Epic 7 Wood
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Mizuno JPX Tour 4-9
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Mizuno T7 46*,54*,58*,62*
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
    Wilson 1960s 8843-345
    ××××××××××××××××××××××××
  • kenstlkenstl  442WRX Points: 66Handicap: 7Members Posts: 442 Greens
    Joined:  #461
    The only thing missing from this Titleist rant is for it to be presented by Michael Breed!
    Posted:
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Wishon 929 4 wood
    SL Sterling Irons 5-LW

  • MadGolfer76MadGolfer76 Maine 20333WRX Points: 898Members Posts: 20,333 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #462
    Everyone should read "How to Lie with Statistics" at least once in their lives.



    Honestly, if he wanted to say the ball isn't the problem, he could do an Iron Byron test between old and new. I'm sure there is a reason he didn't.
    Posted:


  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • anthanth From the Land Down Under  2784WRX Points: 200Handicap: 4Members Posts: 2,784 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #463
    Can someone point me to the video where Mark Crossfield pulls apart this data? I need him to tell me to be critical of some of these ambit claims, otherwise I just might believe everything I’m being told by Titleist.
    Posted:
    Callaway Rogue 10.5
    Callaway BB Alpha 816 16
    Srixon Z H45 19 Hybrid
    Srixon Z U45 23 Utility
    Srixon Z 765/965 5 - PW
    TaylorMade Milled Grind 50 & 54
    TaylorMade Milled Grind Hi Toe 58
    TaylorMade Spider Tour Red
    TaylorMade TP5
  • UhitUhit  861WRX Points: 0Members Posts: 861
    Joined:  edited Jan 12, 2018 #464


    Everyone should read "How to Lie with Statistics" at least once in their lives.



    Honestly, if he wanted to say the ball isn't the problem, he could do an Iron Byron test between old and new. I'm sure there is a reason he didn't.




    You mean the correlation between the declining amount of public phone cells, and the increase of the average live expectancy within the last 20 years?



    Yes, (meanwhile) I guess, that Davis may address this issue...
    Posted:
  • Holy MosesHoly Moses  10968WRX Points: 780Members Posts: 10,968 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #465
    Jack's comments at PGA National were more of the same. "It's the ball's fault and I've been saying that since the 1970s..." Jack has made golf balls and courses for decades. He notes that people complain at how long it takes to play a round of golf. Yet he makes some of the longest and most difficult courses around and tried to make a ball just as long as anything else out there. Why didn't Jack take the lead and take some of his own medicine? Why is he waiting for the USGA and the R&A to force him to make the changes he thinks are necessary? Jack hasn't even made one course where he could even try these kinds of ideas.



    On the other hand, this study misses some of the reasons why distance might not be good for the game of golf. What about the time it takes to play a round these days? The Titleist study never mentioned that. What about the increased maintenance costs that longer courses generate? Titleist never mentioned that. Today Jack said that only Titleist is against rolling the ball back (Bridgestone has said they are for it, but we have yet to hear from Callaway, Srixon, and TaylorMade). And I can understand why. If you roll the ball back, then all of the OEMs have to make and market a ball that the masses will have to play and test. And Titleist's (already decreasing) stranglehold could be broken.
    Posted:
    Ping G30 LS Tec 10* (DI-6X)
    Ping G30 3W 14.5* (DI-7X)
    Ping G400 Crossover 19* (Tensei CK Pro Blue 80 S)
    Ping i20 4-UW (PX 6.0)
    Ping Glide 2.0 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
    Ping Vault Arna
  • UhitUhit  861WRX Points: 0Members Posts: 861
    Joined:  edited Feb 21, 2018 #466
    Holy Moses wrote:


    Jack's comments at PGA National were more of the same. "It's the ball's fault and I've been saying that since the 1970s..." Jack has made golf balls and courses for decades. He notes that people complain at how long it takes to play a round of golf. Yet he makes some of the longest and most difficult courses around and tried to make a ball just as long as anything else out there. Why didn't Jack take the lead and take some of his own medicine? Why is he waiting for the USGA and the R&A to force him to make the changes he thinks are necessary? Jack hasn't even made one course where he could even try these kinds of ideas.



    On the other hand, this study misses some of the reasons why distance might not be good for the game of golf. What about the time it takes to play a round these days? The Titleist study never mentioned that. What about the increased maintenance costs that longer courses generate? Titleist never mentioned that. Today Jack said that only Titleist is against rolling the ball back (Bridgestone has said they are for it, but we have yet to hear from Callaway, Srixon, and TaylorMade). And I can understand why. If you roll the ball back, then all of the OEMs have to make and market a ball that the masses will have to play and test. And Titleist's (already decreasing) stranglehold could be broken.




    J.B. Holmes, J. Day, J. Nicklaus, etc., and every other slow player imitating them, are responsible for longer rounds of golf,



    because you can play the very same course, with the very same length, in 4 hours, or 6 hours - solely depending on the people you play with, or the people in front of you. image/read.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':read:' />





    This is completely independent from the balls they use.



    -



    Someone already pointed to the (fun-) fact, that one can run a mile within the time Holmes took for one shot!



    ...I can play a whole par 3 in that time.





    How long do you need, to walk (additional) 500 yards?



    ...probably not longer than you are currently allowed to search for one ball.
    Posted:
  • gvogelgvogel  8099WRX Points: 1,087Members Posts: 8,099 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #467
    Jack says the modern ball goes too far. Tiger says the modern ball goes too far. Louis Oosthuizen says the modern ball goes too far. MIke Davis has come to that conclusion, and now Martin Slumbers is on the same side of that fence.



    These are guys at the highest levels of the game, and they have a lot more say than a bunch of us rambling folks on the internet. I happen to think that we have reached a point where there might be a change to the ball - and maybe to the COR of the drivers and fairway woods.
    Posted:
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741WRX Points: 1,541Members Posts: 11,741 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #468
    Grumpy old guy #1 complains about the modern ball.



    Grumpy old guy #2 complains about the modern ball.



    Grumpy young guy complains about the modern ball.



    And Mike Davis WHO WORKS FOR THE ORGANIZATION WITH 100% CONTROL OVER THE DISTANCE OF THE BALL complains about the modern golf ball making it tough for him to play Mr. Wizard doing course setups for his employer's events.



    Yep, that convinces me I need a shorter ball. Those guys are really speaking for mainstream golfer, right there.
    Posted:
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • UhitUhit  861WRX Points: 0Members Posts: 861
    Joined:  #469
    gvogel wrote:


    Jack says the modern ball goes too far. Tiger says the modern ball goes too far. Louis Oosthuizen says the modern ball goes too far. MIke Davis has come to that conclusion, and now Martin Slumbers is on the same side of that fence.



    These are guys at the highest levels of the game, and they have a lot more say than a bunch of us rambling folks on the internet. I happen to think that we have reached a point where there might be a change to the ball - and maybe to the COR of the drivers and fairway woods.




    Great idea, lets forget the facts, common sense, and our brain for a minute,

    and believe everything the leader(s) say(s)...



    ...even Abraham Lincoln was aware, that:



    "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
    Posted:
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741WRX Points: 1,541Members Posts: 11,741 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #470
    Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.



    In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?



    So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.
    Posted:
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • trackcoach13trackcoach13 NJ 1106WRX Points: 287Handicap: 4Members Posts: 1,106 Platinum Tees
    Joined:  #471
    Very disappointed in Jack and what he is suggesting. A few of my golf buddies are in their 70's and still enjoy the game like they did 20 years ago. One of them texted me and said the ball/equipment allows him to still play 6000-6200 yards even at 76 years old. Changing that would make it more difficult on our seniors. To me Jack sounds like this guy:



    9rYVxqH.jpg
    Posted:
    Driver: Cobra F9 with HZRDUS SMOKE Stiff
    3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff
    2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
    Irons: Mizuno MP-54 3-PW DG S300 
    Wedge: Vokey TVD 56 K-Grind
    Wedge: Vokey SM6 60-12 K-Grind 
    Putter: Scotty Cameron Newport 2
  • gvogelgvogel  8099WRX Points: 1,087Members Posts: 8,099 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #472


    Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.



    In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?



    So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.




    What's the big deal? So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference. It's golf. If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.



    The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game. In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013. Unarguable.
    Posted:
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • gvogelgvogel  8099WRX Points: 1,087Members Posts: 8,099 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #473


    Grumpy old guy #1 complains about the modern ball.



    Grumpy old guy #2 complains about the modern ball.



    Grumpy young guy complains about the modern ball.



    And Mike Davis WHO WORKS FOR THE ORGANIZATION WITH 100% CONTROL OVER THE DISTANCE OF THE BALL complains about the modern golf ball making it tough for him to play Mr. Wizard doing course setups for his employer's events.



    Yep, that convinces me I need a shorter ball. Those guys are really speaking for mainstream golfer, right there.




    By the way, grumpy old guy #2 is currently at the top of the leader board at the Honda. Where he should be.
    Posted:
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741WRX Points: 1,541Members Posts: 11,741 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  edited Feb 22, 2018 #474
    gvogel wrote:



    Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.



    In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?



    So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.




    What's the big deal? So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference. It's golf. If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.



    The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game. In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013. Unarguable.




    If they want to make any material difference in how the game is played by Dustin Johnson, they are not talking about a 2-3% rolback. It would have to be 20-30% to make DJ hit the same clubs into the same holes at the same length as Jack did in his prime. And I'm not sure a 30% rollback would actually do that.



    So don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, please. They are not talking about a tweak to the ball that makes my 210-yard drives go 205.



    And yes, the game has changed since the early 90's. The equipment and balls got better in every way. I like better.
    Posted:
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • UhitUhit  861WRX Points: 0Members Posts: 861
    Joined:  edited Feb 22, 2018 #475
    gvogel wrote:



    Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.



    In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?



    So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.




    What's the big deal? So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference. It's golf. If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.



    The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game. In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013. Unarguable.




    ...well, if you unarguable deny the distance report of the USGA itself, and the fact, that distances haven't changed since more than a decade, because of the ball, and the equipment regulation...



    ...and you ignore, that the fairways became faster, and that the athletes have more sophisticated training programs etc...



    ...then yes...



    ...a truly unarguable point.



    -



    Maybe you should consider, that the agronomy with the advent of the lown-mowers has changed the game more, within a 20 year time span, than everything else... image/derisive.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':derisive:' />
    Posted:
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741WRX Points: 1,541Members Posts: 11,741 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #476
    Uhit wrote:

    gvogel wrote:



    Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.



    In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?



    So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.




    What's the big deal? So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference. It's golf. If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.



    The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game. In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013. Unarguable.




    ...well, if you unarguable deny the distance report of the USGA itself, and the fact, that distances haven't changed since more than a decade, because of the ball, and the equipment regulation...



    ...and you ignore, that the fairways became faster, and that the athletes have more sophisticated training programs etc...



    ...then yes...



    ...a truly unarguable point.




    He doesn't care about the past 15 years. He hated the ProV1 and Titanium driver when they first appeared, he thinks they should never been allowed in the first place, he wants to go back in time to the late 1990's and correct this historic injustice that has demonstrably ruined the game.



    This isn't about what's happening now or going forward. This is about re-litigating a decision that was made nearly 20 years ago.
    Posted:
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • gvogelgvogel  8099WRX Points: 1,087Members Posts: 8,099 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #477

    gvogel wrote:



    Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.



    In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?



    So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.




    What's the big deal? So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference. It's golf. If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.



    The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game. In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013. Unarguable.




    If they want to make any material difference in how the game is played by Dustin Johnson, they are not talking about a 2-3% rolback. It would have to be 20-30% to make DJ hit the same clubs into the same holes at the same length as Jack did in his prime. And I'm not sure a 30% rollback would actually do that.



    So don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, please. They are not talking about a tweak to the ball that makes my 210-yard drives go 205.



    And yes, the game has changed since the early 90's. The equipment and balls got better in every way. I like better.




    I would never pee on your leg.



    I am guessing that the USGA/R&A will come out with two, or possibly 3 ball specifications. The different specifications would apply to different course lengths for elite players. As Mike Davis mentioned last summer, an elite player could play Myopia Hunt Club with ball spec #2 or #3, and make that shorter course a challenge again. That happens to be Jack's approach as well.



    That approach would be for elite players, and would not change the game for you or me. There is an old course that I play from time to time with hickories; I would have the option of using ball spec #2 or #3 on that course. But not on the course that measures 6400 where I play in the Thursday league.
    Posted:
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741WRX Points: 1,541Members Posts: 11,741 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #478
    That is impossibly complicated and bloody-minded...so I guess I wouldn't at all put it past the USGA, seems right in their wheelhouse.
    Posted:
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • cxxcxx  3240WRX Points: 225Members Posts: 3,240 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #479
    Most of the damage has already been done. The ball goes further, courses built from the 90's on are much bigger and more difficult than their predecessors. All the courses wanted bragging rights over the longest and hardest test of golf. During this same period, maintenance got more expensive and green fee's went up. The popping of the real estate bubble took all the air out of the balloon.



    I don't think changing the ball will fix anything at this point.
    Posted:
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741WRX Points: 1,541Members Posts: 11,741 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #480
    courses built in the 90's could not possibly been in response to ProV1 which did not exist



    they were built in response to real estate bubble money
    Posted:
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • cxxcxx  3240WRX Points: 225Members Posts: 3,240 Titanium Tees
    Joined:  #481


    courses built in the 90's could not possibly been in response to ProV1 which did not exist



    they were built in response to real estate bubble money




    No it wasn't a response to the prov1 but the increase in pro distance was a direct result of the prov1. This to lead tournament venues including Augusta to stretch their courses. I should mention the arrival of Tiger had something to do with it as well. Then everyone wanted to have the longest and hardest course in the area. Many courses were lengthened so they could claim to be over 7000 yards. People bragged about the slope rating of their course. This was the era where we had moguls in the fairways golf. There were some bad golf courses made during that era, including a couple by Nicklaus. It was the bursting of the real estate bubble that lead to the decrease in the number of golfers and bankrupt golf courses.



    We have a surplus of fairly modern courses that are long. My point is that none of the real problems with golf are fixed by limiting the ball now.
    Posted:
19

Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.