ANNOUNCEMENT:
Please have patience. We understand that this sucks and it will get MUCH better.

Link to full post HERE
Please add any bugs (problems) with new software in the Website Help Forum. There is a dedicated thread HERE.

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

2456712

Comments

  • starsail85starsail85 Advanced Members Posts: 4,799
    The average player on tour is a higher and higher clubhead speed as time goes by , because the course design and tour rota doesn’t allow 100mph good players to compete .



    There were guys with 100mph driver swings on tour in the 80s and 90s but the lengthening courses phased them out



    Stop making it a requirement to hit it so far



    There are humans capable of 400 carry , and that’s the way it will end up if the courses keep getting longer
    Mizuno ST190G atmos 6s
    Mizuno MP18 2fh / PX 6.0
    Mizuno MP18 3-Pw/ PX 6.0
    Mizuno S18 5310+5812/PX 6.0
    Ping TR Anser 1966/ 34”

    Ball - pro v1x
    Grips - Crossline cord

    Lofts 18 , 21.5, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 58
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭
    youraway2 wrote:



    Did you read the study? There has been no increase over the past decade.



    Clubhead size correlates almost exactly with driving distance. As does length of fairway grass.



    So it would be just as easy to change fairway grass height and every course could choose to do it at little or no cost.
    Our course no longer uses triplex mowers in the fairways, they use pull behind gang mowers, which cannot cut to .187 or 3/16 of an inch. We have slow fairways and very short drives.




    My home course also still uses gang mower on the fairway. Our cheap selves demoed a Tri plex for 2 weeks this summer and I loved it. The tight lies were great. But some of the older constituents complained and the plan to buy was axed. Seems they prefer a teed up lie . Terrible in my opinion , but hey. I'm The one usually called selfish. Go figure.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • oikos1oikos1 Advanced Members Posts: 2,223 ✭✭
    nova6868 wrote:


    They make a good point about the changes in agronomy. Mowing fairways with Toro greens mowers is absolutely nuts. I know these guys want perfect lies in the fairway, but give me a break.



    VvnF27n.jpg





    I want to see some of the older courses brought back into rotation, but I don't know if its necessary to roll back the ball. I wonder if they couldn't just narrow the fairways, cut them longer, cut the rough longer, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing a pro carry a drive 270 but it only rolls out to 280, then their lie in the fairway isn't even all that great. Welcome to my world!




    Love it! At first look I thought that was a go-cart track just outside of Talladega.
  • drbonesvtdrbonesvt ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 8,049 ClubWRX
    All Hail Tri -furcation



    Pro’s

    Am’s

    Wrx’ers



    Thanks for sharing the presentation
    8.5 (9.2*) G400 LST Tensi Pro White 70TX (tipped 1")@44.75" +5gr Hot Melt Toe<br />M1 16' Tour Issue 15.0* (14.2*) Diamana D+ Limited 90tx (Tipped 2.5”) @ 43" |<br />Titleist 2i 18.5* T-MB AD DI 105x (Tipped 2.5”) | Sans 2i R15 5w Fit on Pro 95XX (tipped 2.5”)<br />Titleist MB 716 3-PW (47* PW) Tour Issue X100s (HSx1) <br />54* Wedge Works V grind & 60* Wedge Works M grind - Tour Issue S400 <br />Bettinardi BB8 Trisole or Toulon San Diego <br />All Zcord All the Time <br />all woods & 2i hot melted <br /><br />WITB Link
  • jacobEDGEjacobEDGE Advanced Members Posts: 1,961 ✭✭
    edited December 2017
    mosesgolf wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    By the way, when I was playing pretty good golf back in the late 70's and 80's, we took it for granted that some par 4 holes, in some conditions, were not reachable in 2 shots. Only the really long guys could get to a 420 yard par 4 playing into the wind.



    Now it seems that the current generation feels entitled to reach any par 4 in two shots because of equipment advances. Your conclusion will be different than mine.


    IMO every par 4 should be reachable in two. image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />




    I mean courses are designed and the score is calculated so that you hit par 4's in two shots.



    Every hole on a course is meant for a 2-putt. That means a Par 3 allows you one stroke to reach the green, Par 4s allow you two strokes to reach the green, and Par 5s allow you three strokes to reach the green. Then you 2-putt and get your par. The score you're supposed to achieve. You reach a par 5 in two? Or you make a one putt? Then you get rewarded with birdie.



    So yes, the game of golf was literally created and intended for golfers to take 2 strokes to reach a Par 4 green.
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf Advanced Members Posts: 3,274 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:



    Did you read the study? There has been no increase over the past decade.



    Clubhead size correlates almost exactly with driving distance. As does length of fairway grass.



    So it would be just as easy to change fairway grass height and every course could choose to do it at little or no cost.




    Did you read the study? It is not the past decade that is relevant to the discussion. It is about what happened from 1995 to 2005. It has taken the golf community many more years to fully understand what happened in that time period, and address the concerns.




    Courses that would adjust have already adjusted if we all agree nothing has really changed in the last 13 years. Non-issue.
    Driver - Ping G400 MAX 10.5*
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-GW Away - Ping i500 5-AW
    Wedge - Vokey TVD 56* K Grind
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
  • Vardon GripVardon Grip Advanced Members Posts: 422 ✭✭
    sooo much reading and my drives are still short.
  • starsail85starsail85 Advanced Members Posts: 4,799
    nova6868 wrote:


    They make a good point about the changes in agronomy. Mowing fairways with Toro greens mowers is absolutely nuts. I know these guys want perfect lies in the fairway, but give me a break.



    VvnF27n.jpg





    I want to see some of the older courses brought back into rotation, but I don't know if its necessary to roll back the ball. I wonder if they couldn't just narrow the fairways, cut them longer, cut the rough longer, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing a pro carry a drive 270 but it only rolls out to 280, then their lie in the fairway isn't even all that great. Welcome to my world!






    The balls been rolling miles at that course for over 500 years
    Mizuno ST190G atmos 6s
    Mizuno MP18 2fh / PX 6.0
    Mizuno MP18 3-Pw/ PX 6.0
    Mizuno S18 5310+5812/PX 6.0
    Ping TR Anser 1966/ 34”

    Ball - pro v1x
    Grips - Crossline cord

    Lofts 18 , 21.5, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53, 58
  • John L.John L. Advanced Members Posts: 1,248
    In 1981-1982 I took up the game at the New London Sub Base with a fever. I played every single day I could, even during the winter when there wasn't snow on the ground. I was considered to be pretty long off the tee by my group of friends at the time. I primarily used a stiff shafted PowerBilt Citation persimmon driver, with a Top Flite XL or Titleist DT ball. I played balata balls (Pro Trajectory's) occasionally, but they sometimes cost me more than my greens fees. I could play all day at the sub base for under 10 bucks. A good drive for me back then was about 275 yards.



    I was one of the last guys who made the transition to metal woods, newer shaft technology, and trying different balls.



    Fast forward about 37 years, and I just turned 60 in Nov.



    Today, I play equipment with much better shaft technology, driver heads with incredible forgiveness, and a Pro V1 ball.



    A good drive for me today can still sneak out there to about 280 yards +/-



    I am not going to complain about a **** thing. image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
  • John L.John L. Advanced Members Posts: 1,248



    Any recreational golfer who wants to dial back the golf ball's distance need only move back a set of tees to experience the same effect. Already at the tips? Ditch the driver.



    In any case, exempt Super Seniors as I'm already depressed about my lack of distance and exempt Women, for whom Tee It Forward was always irrelevant.




    Opppsite can be said. 99% of Men who reach 60 shouldn't be long enough to still play the "men's" tee. But they are today.




    About 1/2 the guys I play with are 60 and older. There are a few of the 70+ guys that can still nail it.
  • Man_O_WarMan_O_War Advanced Members Posts: 2,663 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:


    By the way, when I was playing pretty good golf back in the late 70's and 80's, we took it for granted that some par 4 holes, in some conditions, were not reachable in 2 shots. Only the really long guys could get to a 420 yard par 4 playing into the wind.



    Now it seems that the current generation feels entitled to reach any par 4 in two shots because of equipment advances. Your conclusion will be different than mine.




    not just reach a par 4 of 420 but have a wedge for the second shot...
    Cobra LTD Pro Matrix F6M2/F7M3/Project X LZ 6.0 71g HC/ Fuji 661 III
    Cobra LTD 3/4 Kai'li 80
    Cobra LTD 4/5 Kai'li 80
    TM Mid_Rescue TP 22*
    Nike Vapor Pro Irons Modus 120x SSx2 4-pw
    RTX 3.0 50, 54, 60 Modus 125
    Machine LN M6
  • BIG STUBIG STU Advanced Members Posts: 11,068 ✭✭
    SnakeP. wrote:


    They are going to hurt a lot of people if they roll the ball back. There is no way there is going to be a separate ball for Pros and Ams, everyone will go back to the tour ball. The longest drivers were still smashing the ball 20 years ago, technology has allowed the pack to keep up, I don't really see this as a bad thing.



    This is a complete non issue for 99% of the golfing world. At the courses I play, on any given day you could probably count the players that can hit a ball over 300 on your fingers. The majority of these golfers don't hit their drivers 220. Lots of women and seniors are laying up on par 3s with their driver. I could really care less that the classic courses that I'll never set foot on can't host their majors. I do not give half a **** that Augusta has had to do some renovating to stay relevant. I care about playing golf a lot more than watching golf.



    At this point, I'd normally write something sarcastic and disparaging, but I don't want to undermine my own argument. Seriously, you're going to hurt millions of golfers catering to a couple hundred tour players.
    I have stated this before-- The Ball companies will loose money on the new "limited" ball for the general masses. I dare say 90% of the people playing the game now play for fun and do not play stipulated rounds even at league level. Seniors (I am one BTW) are not going to buy a new high priced ball that goes less distance. there are too many balls out here of all brands that are conforming to today's standards. I am retired from stipulated comp and play mostly for fun and could care less what the USGA R&A or the PGA want to do. All 3 of them can pound sand as far as I am concerned
    Driver: Homna G1-X Homna stock Regular shaft
    FW Adams Tight Lies 16* Diamana Reg
    Irons 3 thru 9 KZG Kyoei Forged CB 1st generation Swing Science 400 Graphite Senior flex
    PW Cleveland Special 588 45* bent to 47* Stock Cleveland Steel Shaft
    SW Cleveland 588 56* DG Sensicore S-300 ( old dependable)
    Putter- 1997 Scotty Cameron Santa Fe Bulls Eye fluted shaft rusty and lead taped as heck named "Rusty"
    Bag-- Jones Classic non stand
    Founding Father of Outlaw Golf Association member #1---- Play what you want **** the USGA & R&A
    Redneck Hippie Golf When the Tailgate drops the BS Stops
    Vintage
    Toney Penna Model 1 Aldila HM-40
    3&4 woods Macgregor DX Keyhole steel TT R
    Irons 2 thru 9 1954 Hogan Precision TT green or 1980 Macgregor VIP 3 thru PW Hogan Apex #2 shafts " The famous Bastardized Macs"
    PW Hogan White Cameo 50* Hogan Apex Wedge
    SW Macgregor LRA 56* S-400 DJ Special-- Will rotate out when old dependable does not behave
    Putter ( subject to change) Lil David 8802
    Bag Old School Power Bilt orange mini staff
  • UhitUhit Advanced Members Posts: 861
    Man_O_War wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    By the way, when I was playing pretty good golf back in the late 70's and 80's, we took it for granted that some par 4 holes, in some conditions, were not reachable in 2 shots. Only the really long guys could get to a 420 yard par 4 playing into the wind.



    Now it seems that the current generation feels entitled to reach any par 4 in two shots because of equipment advances. Your conclusion will be different than mine.




    not just reach a par 4 of 420 but have a wedge for the second shot...




    Imagine how hard it is to reach a par 4 with the second shot, after the first went only 170?



    If it were that easy to drive 300 yards on a regular base into the right direction, the scores would have dropped, but that is simply not the case.



    You need more skill to drive it fast, long and accurate, than to drive it fast, short and accurate - simple as that!
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭


    Why is Titleist responding to an argument nobody is having? Who has said the absolute longest players are winning at the highest clip? Isn't the argument (regardless of your opinion) that the relative length of the field has changed the way the game is played thus making skills such as long and mid-iron play, and shot making less relevant than they used to be (as well as some classic golf courses)?




    That's part of the argument. I think what Titleist is saying is all of the things that led to more distance have stabilized over the past decade and with controls in place are quite likely to remain that way.



    And what I am saying is that distance is highly overrated on the Tour. It still takes all of the other skills to win and the statistics support this fact.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭
    Question. How would the side that's against he ball being rolled back distance wise feel if it were rolled back to a ball that simply spins more. One that's harder to hit straight ? But Retains the possibility of going the same distance as now on a perfect strike ? Coupled with a cc rollback of 100cc for driver. Would that be a fair compromise to the proposed ball rollback ?
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • gvogelgvogel Advanced Members Posts: 7,001 ✭✭
    farmer wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    By the way, when I was playing pretty good golf back in the late 70's and 80's, we took it for granted that some par 4 holes, in some conditions, were not reachable in 2 shots. Only the really long guys could get to a 420 yard par 4 playing into the wind.



    Now it seems that the current generation feels entitled to reach any par 4 in two shots because of equipment advances. Your conclusion will be different than mine.
    You were playing steel shafted wood and balata. Likely on a course that by modern agronomical standards was a goat track. You might as well compare the car you drive today to the car you drove in that era.




    It hosted a Canadian Open.
    On Sundays, I used to play hickory
  • vernonvernon Hi! I'm Holly! Advanced Members Posts: 1,174 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:


    By the way, when I was playing pretty good golf back in the late 70's and 80's, we took it for granted that some par 4 holes, in some conditions, were not reachable in 2 shots. Only the really long guys could get to a 420 yard par 4 playing into the wind.



    Now it seems that the current generation feels entitled to reach any par 4 in two shots because of equipment advances. Your conclusion will be different than mine.
    And with nothing more than a 9 iron or else something is "tricked up".
  • ByeBye Advanced Members Posts: 1,299 ✭✭



    Why is Titleist responding to an argument nobody is having? Who has said the absolute longest players are winning at the highest clip? Isn't the argument (regardless of your opinion) that the relative length of the field has changed the way the game is played thus making skills such as long and mid-iron play, and shot making less relevant than they used to be (as well as some classic golf courses)?




    That's part of the argument. I think what Titleist is saying is all of the things that led to more distance have stabilized over the past decade and with controls in place are quite likely to remain that way.



    And what I am saying is that distance is highly overrated on the Tour. It still takes all of the other skills to win and the statistics support this fact.




    Titleist are trying to blame everything else for the distance gains, but all they have done is highlighted that the introduction of the pro v1 is what has made the biggest difference. All thy are doing is trying to protect their golden goose,



    Just look at the players that have won this year, you won't find many short to medium hitting players.



    Taylormade 2017 M1 10.5 - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X - 44.5 inches
    Callaway Rogue 3 Wood - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X
    Titleist 816 H2 21 degrees - Aldila Rogue Black 85X
    Titleist 716CB 4-9 - X100
    Vokey 46.08, 50.08 - X100
    Vokey 56S, 60M - S300
    Scotty Cameron Select Fastback
    Titleist Pro V1
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:


    Shot making becomes more difficult, the farther the ball travels - no matter which number is written on the golf club...



    ...the evidence can be found in the numbers the OP mentioned.




    This is true. A 1 degree error on a 200 yard shot is the same regardless of the club used.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    Shilgy wrote:
    Courses do not HAVE TO change to accommodate the longer hitters. They CHOOSE TO. All to keep another changing game from changing. Funny how some want the equipment changed but are perfectly fine with the improved agronomy we play the game on. Rather than increase spin in the construction of the ball the pros would actually have a more difficult time imo from longer fairways. Reading the lie would be more of an art as fliers would be an occasional result.




    The easiest way to reduce driving distances is to mow fairways like they did in 1990 and keep them well watered. That would reduce drives by 10 - 20 yards.
  • EKELLYEKELLY Advanced Members Posts: 2,593
    raynorfan1 wrote:


    What I have a hard time with on the "roll it back" campaign is understanding the problem they're trying to solve. Even if we all can agree that guys hit the ball farther today than they did 30 years ago, we still haven't established why that's a problem.



    The best I can tell is that Jack Nicklaus et. al. wants everybody to believe that he was the best golfer ever, and can't accept that any one of the guys in current Top 10 would handily beat in-his-prime Jack. Athletes get better over time. Games evolve. Get over it.
    The MAIN difference is the guys that know how to CLOSE. That's why Tiger is the only stud we'll see in our lifetime......No Watson's, Trevino's, Faldo's, Phil's, on the horizon. Maybe Spieth, and Rory may not be done yet..... There is a reason why the Rose's, Johnson's, Day's, will only win 1-2 majors........They aren't Closers!......
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut Advanced Members Posts: 7,053 ✭✭

    Uhit wrote:


    Shot making becomes more difficult, the farther the ball travels - no matter which number is written on the golf club...



    ...the evidence can be found in the numbers the OP mentioned.




    This is true. A 1 degree error on a 200 yard shot is the same regardless of the club used.






    Depends on what "error" we are talking about. Are we talking ball start direction or face to path differences in the swing?
    TM Supertri V2 w/ AD DI (Testing a new one that's on probation)
    Callaway 3Deep w/ 73 BB or Stage 2 3W w/ 73 BB
    Stage 2 3H w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway Apex UT 21* w/ i80 Steelfiber
    Callaway X Prototype MBs 4-PW w/ Steelfiber AMI 99s
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind (both X100 8 iron SS)
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • cxxcxx Advanced Members Posts: 3,029 ✭✭
    Titleist has everything to lose. They are the dominant golf ball maker and their marketing is about how many tour players use their ball. A spec ball strips any pretense of superior technology away. If I were any other ball manufacturer, I'd be all for it. Shake it all up and lets see what happens.



    I remember when the hardest track was the most desirable. This lead to real idiocy in golf course design. Everyone wanted the hardest track and they got it. Fairways turned into moguls, save a target landing area. Carry distances grew. Greens were funny shapes and protected from all sides. It was bad news. I was so happy when they started making more traditional designs again.



    The biggest problem is that the number of golfers has decreased. There was a bubble that started in the 80's and 90's which kind of popped in '08. There is still an imbalance in the economics of golf. So far, nothing has been done by the golf industry or ruling bodies to get to a more healthy financial standing. I'm a bit concerned that there is a lot more fallout before it gets better. I'm not sure that the spec ball is the answer.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Advanced Members Posts: 3,503 ✭✭


    Question. How would the side that's against he ball being rolled back distance wise feel if it were rolled back to a ball that simply spins more. One that's harder to hit straight ? But Retains the possibility of going the same distance as now on a perfect strike ? Coupled with a cc rollback of 100cc for driver. Would that be a fair compromise to the proposed ball rollback ?




    What problem are you solving for?



    I’d rather have them roll back the driver size/COR and wedge groove rules.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    augustgolf wrote:


    This past weekend, players (on Tour) were routinely hitting driver & 9 - irons and/or wedges into 18, a par 4 - 469 yards.



    Call the "new" 9 - iron an old 7 - iron if you will, but nobody hit driver/7 - iron into 469 yard par 4's in the past. They were lucky to hit a long iron if not a fairway wood.



    I understand evolution, but that is a hard fact to deny -




    Nobody denies those numbers. But it hasn't translated into lower scoring. Scoring has been flat for the last 18 years.
  • coopscoops Advanced Members Posts: 1,200 ✭✭
    cxx wrote:


    Titleist has everything to lose. They are the dominant golf ball maker and their marketing is about how many tour players use their ball. A spec ball strips any pretense of superior technology away.




    Doesn't need to be a 'spec' ball...



    back in the 1960's... a long, long time ago ;-) ... get a copy of "The Perfect Golf Swing" by Cochran & Stubbs - even then there's some discussion about 'does the ball go too far?'.



    One option they give is limiting the ball weight from 1.62 ounces down to about 1.3 ounces - easily checked, because at that weight a golf ball will float in fresh water.



    They computed some results and also checked against some balls supplied by Dunlop to verify their estimates which matched nicely... the longer the drive the greater the reduction. One issue would be more susceptible to wind ( and so the manufacturer's skill in aerodynamics would still give advantages and differences).



    Or reduce the current Tour fairway stimp readings, which don't match any course I play on except that time in a heatwave in the Scottish Borders where the fairways were concrete and the rough was thigh high hay.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭

    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Won't work to use it that way. Take Spieth. He's so far down in the driving list because he misses fairways. Not from distance. Just proves that being longer in the rough is better than short in the fairway.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • TsarBombaTsarBomba Advanced Members Posts: 698
    starsail85 wrote:


    The average player on tour is a higher and higher clubhead speed as time goes by , because the course design and tour rota doesn’t allow 100mph good players to compete .



    There were guys with 100mph driver swings on tour in the 80s and 90s but the lengthening courses phased them out



    Stop making it a requirement to hit it so far



    There are humans capable of 400 carry , and that’s the way it will end up if the courses keep getting longer




    Some would argue golf is a sport. And in sports, it is pretty normal for those with physical gifts and ability to have an advantage over those who do not. Trying to find a way to take away the advantage is silly.



    Right now there already is a rule in place limiting the ball. For most golfers the courses are plenty long and challenging. For the elite few it's easier due to thier length - and thats how it should be.



    Those who understand the technology, know that the plateau has already been reached with optimized launch/spin, superior aerodynamics. The mfgrs are right at the limits now. The 400 yard guys that also have touch - if/when these unicorns come along, they would have an advantage regardless of how we choose to ruin the golf ball.



  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    nova6868 wrote:


    They make a good point about the changes in agronomy. Mowing fairways with Toro greens mowers is absolutely nuts. I know these guys want perfect lies in the fairway, but give me a break.



    I want to see some of the older courses brought back into rotation, but I don't know if its necessary to roll back the ball. I wonder if they couldn't just narrow the fairways, cut them longer, cut the rough longer, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing a pro carry a drive 270 but it only rolls out to 280, then their lie in the fairway isn't even all that great. Welcome to my world!




    Exactly! If the older courses want to be relevant, they can choose to do so without spending much money. Grow the fairways, water the fairways, narrow the fairways and grow taller rough.



    Roll back the fairways, not the ball.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    Question. How would the side that's against he ball being rolled back distance wise feel if it were rolled back to a ball that simply spins more. One that's harder to hit straight ? But Retains the possibility of going the same distance as now on a perfect strike ? Coupled with a cc rollback of 100cc for driver. Would that be a fair compromise to the proposed ball rollback ?




    What problem are you solving for?



    I’d rather have them roll back the driver size/COR and wedge groove rules.




    And I get that. You'd rather hit a straight ball yes?



    I'm saying that the true issue isn't total distance . It's the ease at which it's achieved.



    And on top of that approach shots. We see less and less flighted , worked in shots to a tight pin. It's all high straight at it. It's a pipe dream I know as it won't happen. But if every tour player had to play a less forgiving iron ( one without perimeter weighting ) and a ball that spun more viewing in my opinion would be x100 more fun to watch. Cream would rise as usual. And we would see a lot more interesting pro tracer shots. Anyone think that isn't true ? If so I'd love to hear how straight is more fun to watch. Truth is it wont happen because of $. Can't sell less forgiveness to the masses. So the game is sold off bit by bit.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    Bye wrote:




    Just look at the players that have won this year, you won't find many short to medium hitting players.




    15 of the top 30 on the money list are 50th or worse in driving distance and six of them are very short hitters ranking over 100th in driving distance.
  • tannyhobantannyhoban Advanced Members Posts: 1,793 ✭✭
    My admiration for Niclaus has completely devolved. He has 17 designs that will be played on tours worldwide. Seems he's butt hurt the kids play them better.



    Bash Titleist for pointing out the obvious if you will, but don't discount Jack's agenda.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    Question. How would the side that's against he ball being rolled back distance wise feel if it were rolled back to a ball that simply spins more. One that's harder to hit straight ? But Retains the possibility of going the same distance as now on a perfect strike ? Coupled with a cc rollback of 100cc for driver. Would that be a fair compromise to the proposed ball rollback ?




    What problem are you solving for?



    I'd rather have them roll back the driver size/COR and wedge groove rules.




    Even though I don't think there is a problem to solve, I vote for rolling back the fairways.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭
    TsarBomba wrote:

    starsail85 wrote:


    The average player on tour is a higher and higher clubhead speed as time goes by , because the course design and tour rota doesn’t allow 100mph good players to compete .



    There were guys with 100mph driver swings on tour in the 80s and 90s but the lengthening courses phased them out



    Stop making it a requirement to hit it so far



    There are humans capable of 400 carry , and that’s the way it will end up if the courses keep getting longer




    Some would argue golf is a sport. And in sports, it is pretty normal for those with physical gifts and ability to have an advantage over those who do not. Trying to find a way to take away the advantage is silly.



    Right now there already is a rule in place limiting the ball. For most golfers the courses are plenty long and challenging. For the elite few it's easier due to thier length - and thats how it should be.



    Those who understand the technology, know that the plateau has already been reached with optimized launch/spin, superior aerodynamics. The mfgrs are right at the limits now. The 400 yard guys that also have touch - if/when these unicorns come along, they would have an advantage regardless of how we choose to ruin the golf ball.




    Don't think that's true. We haven't had a golf ball yet come out that's at the limit. At some point one will be released that is advertised as " pushing the limit " . Hasn't happened yet. But it will.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭


    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Won't work to use it that way. Take Spieth. He's so far down in the driving list because he misses fairways. Not from distance. Just proves that being longer in the rough is better than short in the fairway.




    My stats are driving DISTANCE. Spieth is 75th in DISTANCE.
  • Hawkeye77Hawkeye77 Countdown to The Masters! ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 16,734 ClubWRX
    It is NOT a study.



    It is a Papal Bull from golf ball world's Vatican.



    Nothing in there that is new or hasn't been discussed ad nauseam on here or anywhere else before. Just good and (although sounding a little shrill at this point) proactive marketing.



    And again, I like my ProV1s and Chrome Softs very much, thank you and golf balls for the average golfer aren't going to get dialed back, and likely not for the pros either (and if they did for pros, who cares).
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭



    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Won't work to use it that way. Take Spieth. He's so far down in the driving list because he misses fairways. Not from distance. Just proves that being longer in the rough is better than short in the fairway.




    My stats are driving DISTANCE. Spieth is 75th in DISTANCE.




    My apologies. I failed to see where it said distance anywhere. ( still don't see it ). Admittedly I have a mental block at times that for whatever reason doesn't let me see the obvious script. Have this trouble at restaurants with the menu etc.



    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Advanced Members Posts: 25,675 ✭✭

    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Look at the web.com tour



    30 guys *average* 310 or more



    87 guys average 300 or more



    Distance off the tee correlates directly with success in golf.



    Proof...



    2 best golfers of all time



    Jack



    Tiger





  • Hawkeye77Hawkeye77 Countdown to The Masters! ClubWRX Charter Members Posts: 16,734 ClubWRX




    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Won't work to use it that way. Take Spieth. He's so far down in the driving list because he misses fairways. Not from distance. Just proves that being longer in the rough is better than short in the fairway.




    My stats are driving DISTANCE. Spieth is 75th in DISTANCE.




    My apologies. I failed to see where it said distance anywhere. ( still don't see it ). Admittedly I have a mental block at times that for whatever reason doesn't let me see the obvious script. Have this trouble at restaurants with the menu etc.




    From time to time, I'm told I have this problem with speed limit signs.

    bscinstnct wrote:


    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Look at the web.com tour



    30 guys *average* 310 or more



    87 guys average 300 or more



    Distance off the tee correlates directly with success in golf.



    Proof...



    2 best golfers of all time



    Jack



    Tiger




    Now those are relevant facts!
  • UhitUhit Advanced Members Posts: 861
    bscinstnct wrote:


    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Look at the web.com tour



    30 guys *average* 310 or more



    87 guys average 300 or more



    Distance off the tee correlates directly with success in golf.



    Proof...



    2 best golfers of all time



    Jack



    Tiger




    So, why do those web.com long hitter play on the web.com tour?



    Is the web.com tour the tour where the best golfers of all time play?



    That two of the greatest golfers of all time were also long, and not only accurate, shows, how much skill is needed to be long AND accurate...

    ...this combination is obviously very rare, and should be rewarded.



    Short and accurate is something you can watch all day when senior golfers play.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Advanced Members Posts: 24,236 ✭✭
    edited December 2017
    Uhit wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:


    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Look at the web.com tour



    30 guys *average* 310 or more



    87 guys average 300 or more



    Distance off the tee correlates directly with success in golf.



    Proof...



    2 best golfers of all time



    Jack



    Tiger




    So, why do those web.com long hitter play on the web.com tour?



    Is the web.com tour the tour where the best golfers of all time play?



    That two of the greatest golfers of all time were also long, and not only accurate, shows, how much skill is needed to be long AND accurate...

    ...this combination is obviously very rare, and should be rewarded.



    Short and accurate is something you can watch all day when senior golfers play.






    is there a point in that statement ?





    of course being long and accurate is a great asset.... but short and accurate isnt going to win much.... showing spieth as 75th distance is a bit misleading... he averages right at 300.... so one can assume top 80 in the world average around 300... which is long in anyones book... he just happens to have the wedge game of a god to add with being long.... DJ, Keopka, Finau, etc arent long... they are Freaks of nature long... and should be excluded from any argument about length... they will be long no matter what ball is played... ask yourself this question.... take their length away.. make them 275 average hitters... do they stay on top of the money lists etc ? NOpe.. DJ has improved his wedge game.. but by improved i mean hes gone from embarassing to serviceable... if he isnt long and misses more greens because of longer approaches he doesnt have the skills to get up and down enough to stay relevant... Spieth is the obvious exception to this idea... you could shorten him up and hed still make a living... BUT you could give him 30 yards and hed stay #1 in the world for a long long time... distance matters a ton
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design AD DI 8X
    Ping i500 pre-production proto 3 iron Graphite Design AD DI 105X
    Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged 50 54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Advanced Members Posts: 25,675 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:


    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.




    Look at the web.com tour



    30 guys *average* 310 or more



    87 guys average 300 or more



    Distance off the tee correlates directly with success in golf.



    Proof...



    2 best golfers of all time



    Jack



    Tiger




    So, why do those web.com long hitter play on the web.com tour?



    Is the web.com tour the tour where the best golfers of all time play?



    That two of the greatest golfers of all time were also long, and not only accurate, shows, how much skill is needed to be long AND accurate...

    ...this combination is obviously very rare, and should be rewarded.



    Short and accurate is something you can watch all day when senior golfers play.




    The point is the reason that so many young players *on* tour are big hitters.



    Why?



    Its a prerequisite.



    Then, as you say, all aspects of the game funnel the best to the top.



    The titleist study focuses on the pursuit of distance. To me it confirms how important distance is.



    But, I think, they argue its not just the ball but a combo of factors.



  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf Advanced Members Posts: 3,274 ✭✭
    BIG STU wrote:

    SnakeP. wrote:


    They are going to hurt a lot of people if they roll the ball back. There is no way there is going to be a separate ball for Pros and Ams, everyone will go back to the tour ball. The longest drivers were still smashing the ball 20 years ago, technology has allowed the pack to keep up, I don't really see this as a bad thing.



    This is a complete non issue for 99% of the golfing world. At the courses I play, on any given day you could probably count the players that can hit a ball over 300 on your fingers. The majority of these golfers don't hit their drivers 220. Lots of women and seniors are laying up on par 3s with their driver. I could really care less that the classic courses that I'll never set foot on can't host their majors. I do not give half a **** that Augusta has had to do some renovating to stay relevant. I care about playing golf a lot more than watching golf.



    At this point, I'd normally write something sarcastic and disparaging, but I don't want to undermine my own argument. Seriously, you're going to hurt millions of golfers catering to a couple hundred tour players.
    I have stated this before-- The Ball companies will loose money on the new "limited" ball for the general masses. I dare say 90% of the people playing the game now play for fun and do not play stipulated rounds even at league level. Seniors (I am one BTW) are not going to buy a new high priced ball that goes less distance. there are too many balls out here of all brands that are conforming to today's standards. I am retired from stipulated comp and play mostly for fun and could care less what the USGA R&A or the PGA want to do. All 3 of them can pound sand as far as I am concerned




    I agree with most of you post but do you condone someone playing non-conforming drivers and balls in money games or club tournaments with you?
    Driver - Ping G400 MAX 10.5*
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-GW Away - Ping i500 5-AW
    Wedge - Vokey TVD 56* K Grind
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
  • UhitUhit Advanced Members Posts: 861
    edited December 2017

    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.







    Wow, that is impressive,



    Kevin Kisner 120th in driving, and in the top 10 money list!



    Matt Kuchar 148th! in driving, and on place 14 in the money list!



    -



    Only the #2, #7, #8, #13, #16, #19, #20, #23, #26, and #30 in driving distance are in the top 30 of the money list!



    This shows, that there is in general a pretty weak correlation between driving distance and success...



    ...another evidence, that the idea, that the ball goes to far, is just made up to cover completely different faults.
  • Soloman1Soloman1 Advanced Members Posts: 2,441
    So juiced balls and aluminum bats would be good for MLB?
    I'm quitting at 6.022 x 10^23 posts.
    Avogadro would be proud.
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf Advanced Members Posts: 3,274 ✭✭
    Soloman1 wrote:


    So juiced balls and aluminum bats would be good for MLB?


    This year they had their best ratings and many players felt they used a juiced ball, so yes. MLB has been accused throughout the years to use a juiced ball when scoring was down as a means to neutralize great pitching.
    Driver - Ping G400 MAX 10.5*
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-GW Away - Ping i500 5-AW
    Wedge - Vokey TVD 56* K Grind
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
  • Rapatt95Rapatt95 wow Advanced Members Posts: 567 ✭✭
    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.



    Now show me that correlation again.


    Warms my little heart to see Kuch so high on the money list. Seems like a good guy
    Ping Anser 9.5* Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Adams Tight Lies Tour 18* 5w Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Cobra T-Rail 19* 3H Aldila Tour Green ATX75x
    Ben Hogan PTx 22*-34* C-Taper Lite 115x (Thank you GolfWRX and Ben Hogan!)
    Ben Hogan Ft Worth 15 C-Taper Lite 115x
    Ping Glide Forged 50* DG TI S400 (Thank you GolfWRX and Ping!)
    TM TP ATV 54* KBS Tour-V Wedge
    Vokey SM5 58* DG Wedge
    Ping iWi Anser
  • Rapatt95Rapatt95 wow Advanced Members Posts: 567 ✭✭
    Soloman1 wrote:
    So juiced balls and aluminum bats would be good for MLB?


    No, it wouldn’t. But in golf there’s no third baseman 90 feet away worrying about Stanton hitting a 120 mph ball at him with an aluminum bat.



    That’s not a good sport to sport comparison.



    All that matters is who shoots the lowest score. If the lowest score is -21 or -4, who cares? They beat everyone else in the field on the same course on the same 4 days.



    Grow out the fairways say I.
    Ping Anser 9.5* Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Adams Tight Lies Tour 18* 5w Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Cobra T-Rail 19* 3H Aldila Tour Green ATX75x
    Ben Hogan PTx 22*-34* C-Taper Lite 115x (Thank you GolfWRX and Ben Hogan!)
    Ben Hogan Ft Worth 15 C-Taper Lite 115x
    Ping Glide Forged 50* DG TI S400 (Thank you GolfWRX and Ping!)
    TM TP ATV 54* KBS Tour-V Wedge
    Vokey SM5 58* DG Wedge
    Ping iWi Anser
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Advanced Members Posts: 25,675 ✭✭
    edited December 2017
    Uhit wrote:


    bscinstnct wrote:


    There is a direct correlation to distance off the tee and success. Per 2017 PGA Tour stats, nearly every top player averages 295, including Spieth, and most top ten average over 300.



    The top 10 owgr,



    DJ 315

    JS 295

    JT 309

    Rahm 305

    HM 303

    Rose 301

    Rickie 300

    Brooks 311

    Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

    Rory 317




    The debate isn't about who drives it 300 yards. It's about the correlation between distance and success. Let's look at the stats for the top 30 on the money list.



    Notice that only three on the top 30 money list are top 10 drivers. And the #2 money player is 75th in driving. And 15 of the top 30 money guys rank 50th or worse in driving.







    Wow, that is impressive,



    Kevin Kisner 120th in driving, and in the top 10 money list!



    Matt Kuchar 148th! in driving, and on place 14 in the money list!



    -



    Only the #2, #7, #8, #13, #16, #19, #20, #23, #26, and #30 in driving distance are in the top 30 of the money list!



    This shows, that there is in general a pretty weak correlation between driving distance and success...



    ...another evidence, that the idea, that the ball goes to far, is just made up to cover completely different faults.






    If its not obvious enough how clearly length not only correlates with success but is a prerequisite



    Lets look at the bottom 20 in distance and you see that



    None of them are in the top 20owgr. Maybe not even the top 30 or 40 owgr.



    https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2017.html





    The entire top 30 averages 300 yards.



    What seperates #20 in distance from #10?



    4yds.



    Btw, Im dont support rolling the ball back.
Sign In or Register to comment.