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

1235719

Comments

  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,114 ✭✭
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #122
    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.








    still shows nothing... they all drive it far.... you cant name more than 1-2 players on the top 30 money list (if that) , that dont average over 285-290.... thats long... you are relying on your opinion that DJ, keopka etc are the only "long" guys.... just isnt true... they are the outliers that any good fitter would throw out as the 1 in a million shots that skew the data...
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #123

    Uhit wrote:


    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.




    And that's exactly what the Titleist report said.




    What else, could one conclude? image/einstein.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':beruo:' />
  • PGAroxPGArox Members Posts: 10,288 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?
  • ShilgyShilgy Members Posts: 11,306 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    Shilgy wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:


    8 of top 10 owgr (4 of top 5] average 300 yds



    The entire bottom 30 in driving distance is outside the top 40 in the owgr.



    And driving distance does not correlate with success?




    It has a weaker correlation with success, than the short game.



    Ask Mr. 58 Jim Furyk!



    [url="
    That's your argument? The 164th ranked player?




    That was just an example, that one of the shortest hitters on tour was able to produce the lowest score on tour.

    (however not in every tournament of course)



    If there were a strong correlation between driving distance and success,

    Jim Furyk would not have been able to shoot the lowest score ever on Tour - isn´t it?



    Bernhard Langer is also more known for his success, than for the longest drives.
    The strong correlation is not based on just one round. Name a short player that ever dominated the game while being demonstrably shorter than his peers. For that matter what current top 10 player is short off the tee?
    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!
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,141 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:


    Uhit wrote:


    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.




    And that's exactly what the Titleist report said.




    What else, could one conclude? image/einstein.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':beruo:' />




    #1 player in the world



    Dustin Johnson



    #2 driving distance in the world



    Dustin Johnson







    Most majors in the last 6 years



    Rory Mcilroy



    #1 driving distance in the world



    Rory Mcilroy



  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,114 ✭✭
    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?






    if you dont value history then i have the same trouble understanding how you are a fan of this game... and i say that not meaning any offense...
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • ShilgyShilgy Members Posts: 11,306 ✭✭

    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?






    if you dont value history then i have the same trouble understanding how you are a fan of this game... and i say that not meaning any offense...
    Loving the history of the game does not mean it must remain stagnant and never change. The tours play on much better courses today than in the past. No one is clamoring for a return to Brackenridge Park or majors to be played on 6000 yard tracks.
    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!
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,114 ✭✭
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #129
    Shilgy wrote:


    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?






    if you dont value history then i have the same trouble understanding how you are a fan of this game... and i say that not meaning any offense...
    Loving the history of the game does not mean it must remain stagnant and never change. The tours play on much better courses today than in the past. No one is clamoring for a return to Brackenridge Park or majors to be played on 6000 yard tracks.








    yes but thats a far cry from saying we dont care if Shinnecock hosts another major..







    not to mention that the new courses vs old seem to show the new courses as flops.... erin hills , chambers bay, whistling straights..... dont nearly add up to bethpage, Oakmont, Shinnecock.....
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • PGAroxPGArox Members Posts: 10,288 ✭✭

    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?






    if you dont value history then i have the same trouble understanding how you are a fan of this game... and i say that not meaning any offense...




    That's an odd sentiment, and I say that not meaning any offense. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



    I do not value history, although I may appreciate it on some level. I think we observe and, to a certain degree, learn from history.



    I am a fan of this game not because Shinnecock Hills has hosted championships for 100 years. I am a fan because I appreciate the artistry and superior skills demonstrated by the game's best players, and I love seeing them tested to the ultimate degree.



    If an old and historic venue like Shinneock Hills can no longer provide that ultimate test, it should either be redesigned or removed altogether from consideration.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,114 ✭✭
    PGArox wrote:


    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?






    if you dont value history then i have the same trouble understanding how you are a fan of this game... and i say that not meaning any offense...




    That's an odd sentiment, and I say that not meaning any offense. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



    I do not value history, although I may appreciate it on some level. I think we observe and, to a certain degree, learn from history.



    I am a fan of this game not because Shinnecock Hills has hosted championships for 100 years. I am a fan because I appreciate the artistry and superior skills demonstrated by the game's best players, and I love seeing them tested to the ultimate degree.



    If an old and historic venue like Shinneock Hills can no longer provide that ultimate test, it should either be redesigned or removed altogether from consideration.






    just trying to present the side of the argument that you said you didnt understand... which is why i added no offense meant.... if you take offense from it its simply because you disagree..not because there was any offending wording in my post...



    and i dont think any of the older tracks have trouble providing the ulimate test for ball striking and talent... but i do think that we are on the edge of what some can hold as far as equipment goes... which is entirely different than what you have stated.... todays game requires less skill overall.... driving is a wash , as ill concede that controlling a 320 yard tee ball rerquires great skill regardless of help from the ball and large driver.. BUT irons, balls, wedges above 56 all aide players and negate the need for skill.... skill is still present, But if you truly want to see the superior skills demomstrated then youd be in favor of a ball rollback to include more spin and therefore require more control ( skill) to score...



    my opinion of course...and still no offense to anyone meant..
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • DavePelz4DavePelz4 A golf course in the Chicago area.ClubWRX Posts: 24,253 ClubWRX
    Other than scoring average, there is no single statistic that is indicative of someone's ability.
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #133
    Shilgy wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    Shilgy wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:


    8 of top 10 owgr (4 of top 5] average 300 yds



    The entire bottom 30 in driving distance is outside the top 40 in the owgr.



    And driving distance does not correlate with success?




    It has a weaker correlation with success, than the short game.



    Ask Mr. 58 Jim Furyk!



    https://www.youtube....h?v=s8NGfEMSFEQ
    That's your argument? The 164th ranked player?




    That was just an example, that one of the shortest hitters on tour was able to produce the lowest score on tour.

    (however not in every tournament of course)



    If there were a strong correlation between driving distance and success,

    Jim Furyk would not have been able to shoot the lowest score ever on Tour - isn´t it?



    Bernhard Langer is also more known for his success, than for the longest drives.
    The strong correlation is not based on just one round. Name a short player that ever dominated the game while being demonstrably shorter than his peers. For that matter what current top 10 player is short off the tee?




    A strong correlation exceeds in my opinion more than 50% of the cases, but we are at around 33%...



    ...as we already discussed based on that table:



    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,520 ✭✭


    todays game requires less skill overall.... driving is a wash , as ill concede that controlling a 320 yard tee ball rerquires great skill regardless of help from the ball and large driver.. BUT irons, balls, wedges above 56 all aide players and negate the need for skill.... skill is still present, But if you truly want to see the superior skills demomstrated then youd be in favor of a ball rollback to include more spin and therefore require more control ( skill) to score...




    Less skill? No way.



    Different skills? Absolutely. Players are maximizing their abilities under the regime that they live within. There is a relatively high payoff for juniors who put everything into hitting the ball far as priority #1 - so that’s the skill they’ve invested in. And they’re really good at it.



    If you changed the paradigm of competition, players would develop the skills to thrive under that set of rules. Of course, you’d **** an entire generation of aspiring pros in doing it...(just as, perhaps, you did by letting the oversized club/ball situation get to where it is)
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,114 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    todays game requires less skill overall.... driving is a wash , as ill concede that controlling a 320 yard tee ball rerquires great skill regardless of help from the ball and large driver.. BUT irons, balls, wedges above 56 all aide players and negate the need for skill.... skill is still present, But if you truly want to see the superior skills demomstrated then youd be in favor of a ball rollback to include more spin and therefore require more control ( skill) to score...




    Less skill? No way.



    Different skills? Absolutely. Players are maximizing their abilities under the regime that they live within. There is a relatively high payoff for juniors who put everything into hitting the ball far as priority #1 - so that’s the skill they’ve invested in. And they’re really good at it.



    If you changed the paradigm of competition, players would develop the skills to thrive under that set of rules. Of course, you’d **** an entire generation of aspiring pros in doing it...(just as, perhaps, you did by letting the oversized club/ball situation get to where it is)




    I suppose. Mostly agree. I'm not at all good at voicing my thoughts clearly. I suppose it is just different skills.



    But I can't help but notice and think about how many juniors we have that rise to higher levels now. And makes me wonder aboot the correlation between ability and equipment vs past ability and equipment. Surely here isn't any chance that more talent is being born today ? And there isn't more teachers. It has to be because of equipment and tech . At least partly. Rewind equipment. Delete trackman and I wonder how many fewer there would be ?



    My round about point was that if pgarox wants to see the best skill on display then more forgiveness and a straighter ball isn't the best way to see that. Not sure how that can be argued.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #136
    bscinstnct wrote:

    Uhit wrote:


    Uhit wrote:


    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.




    And that's exactly what the Titleist report said.




    What else, could one conclude? image/einstein.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':beruo:' />




    #1 player in the world



    Dustin Johnson



    #2 driving distance in the world



    Dustin Johnson







    Most majors in the last 6 years



    Rory Mcilroy



    #1 driving distance in the world



    Rory Mcilroy




    Lowest round ever on tour (58)



    Jim Furyk



    #190 driving distance (last place)



    17 PGA tour victories



    (DJ 16 PGA tour victories)

    (Rory 13 PGA tour victories)
  • chippa13chippa13 Members Posts: 2,248 ✭✭
    I'm pretty sure both DJ and Rory will surpass Furyk's 17 victories.
  • reelop19reelop19 Members Posts: 87
    Reduced distance golf ball has three downsides I see for the manufacturer especially Titleist

    1. Tooling up to create what is essentially a small run of specialized balls will be an expensive cost the manufacturer will eat or pass on to us. No one but tour pros will play them. Why would a ball manufacturer want these in the hands of amateurs who don’t have to play them.

    2. A manufacturer will be risking these balls getting into the hands of the average player and without them knowing they’ll think the ball is inferior and the company has bad quality control

    3. How does a ball manufacturer now advertise their distance limiting ball is not the ball you will buy, the ball you will buy is so much better even though they don’t have an athlete to prove it because he’s playing a ball you don’t want to play.



    I’ve got an idea to solve number 3....get more Paige Spiranacs in your commercials
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,114 ✭✭
    reelop19 wrote:


    Reduced distance golf ball has three downsides I see for the manufacturer especially Titleist

    1. Tooling up to create what is essentially a small run of specialized balls will be an expensive cost the manufacturer will eat or pass on to us. No one but tour pros will play them. Why would a ball manufacturer want these in the hands of amateurs who don’t have to play them.

    2. A manufacturer will be risking these balls getting into the hands of the average player and without them knowing they’ll think the ball is inferior and the company has bad quality control

    3. How does a ball manufacturer now advertise their distance limiting ball is not the ball you will buy, the ball you will buy is so much better even though they don’t have an athlete to prove it because he’s playing a ball you don’t want to play.



    I’ve got an idea to solve number 3....get more Paige Spiranacs in your commercials




    Paleease no ! A little Paige goes a long way. Like none >some.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • PGAroxPGArox Members Posts: 10,288 ✭✭


    My round about point was that if pgarox wants to see the best skill on display then more forgiveness and a straighter ball isn't the best way to see that. Not sure how that can be argued.




    I am operating under what I believe is the sensible assumption that there will be no rollback or dialing back of the equipment. There just isn't enough support for that idea from anyone who truly matters in the game. The players certainly do not favor it, nor do the equipment manufacturers.



    The logical way forward is to present, design or redesign courses in such a manner that they force players to demonstrate a wider array of skills. In many cases this could very easily be done by repositioning tee boxes and changing the shape of select fairways.
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,141 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:

    Uhit wrote:


    Uhit wrote:


    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.




    And that's exactly what the Titleist report said.




    What else, could one conclude? image/einstein.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':beruo:' />




    #1 player in the world



    Dustin Johnson



    #2 driving distance in the world



    Dustin Johnson







    Most majors in the last 6 years



    Rory Mcilroy



    #1 driving distance in the world



    Rory Mcilroy




    Lowest round ever on tour (58)



    Jim Furyk



    #190 driving distance (last place)



    17 PGA tour victories



    (DJ 16 PGA tour victories)

    (Rory 13 PGA tour victories)




    Jim Furyk



    #190 driving distance (last place) (per you ; )



    Majors



    1 (one)











    Jack Nicklaus



    #1 Driving distance



    Majors



    18 (eighteen)



  • HoganApexBladesHoganApexBlades ...Be the ball, Be the ball Danny... Members Posts: 2,020 ✭✭
    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




    There's the RANTIN' and RAVIN' I was waiting to see!!!



    GO STU, GO!!!
    CHASING CLASSIC CLUBS
  • cristphotocristphoto Members Posts: 3,299 ✭✭
    Leave the ball and the clubs alone. On new courses designed for PGA Tour play simply make more holes doglegs (left and right) that start turning at about 250 yards. Leave a few straight 480+ yard par fours too. This makes the competition balanced for more of the pros - long holes rewarding the bombers and strategy holes for the guys that can work the ball. Design the dogleg early enough on the hole and you could start to actually see mid-irons being played into par fours again. The amateurs playing these courses could still play them banging driver on every par four and five just to get into the dogleg. Do this and you could still build competitive 7000-7500 yard courses. This would lower maintenance costs and lessen the land required, which could possibly keep greens fees in check.



    Personally when I watch the pros play I enjoy seeing good recovery shots as much as the big drives. This design concept might bring back the lost "artistry" to golf. I would think Bubba would be a fan.
  • HoganApexBladesHoganApexBlades ...Be the ball, Be the ball Danny... Members Posts: 2,020 ✭✭
    How about this idea...instead of changing the current golf course layouts/length, ball composition/aerodynamics, club lofts/materials, etc., why not limit the amount of clubs a touring pro can carry per round from 14 to maybe 8? 1 metal wood, 1 hybrid, 1 putter, 2 mid irons and 3 wedges? It seems many pros might drop the driver for a 3 wood for accuracy thus causing shotmaking to become important again over distance.
    CHASING CLASSIC CLUBS
  • mosesgolfmosesgolf Members Posts: 6,833 ✭✭
    It seems like some people forget that



    1. Their are bigger, stronger, & more athletic golfers now

    2. Launch monitors to find ideal numbers

    3. Equipment



    The game evolves the game changes. IMO it's much ado about nothing.

    Didn't Merion give guys fits recently at the US Open. So why such a scoring discrepancy from a course that was about 7000 yards (and that's being generours) vs Erin Hills at 7600 ish?
    Taylormade M1 9.5 661 Tour Spec Stiff
    Taylormade M1 3 Wood 15 Kuro Kage Stiff
    Taylormade RBZ 18 Altus Stiff
    Adams Peanut 24* Altus Stiff
    Taylormade PSI Tour DGS300 Stiff 5-PW
    Taylormade Tour Preferred 52 56 60
    Taylormade SI Spider 72 38
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #146
    Yes, very weak correlation between driving distance and success. I read the Titleist book report and it made me laugh. Using inferior stats like putts per round and driving accuracy will not help you build an accurate statistical model. Come on, Titleist, no P-values in your correlations?



    I'm against bifurcation and a rollback, but this PowerPoint (lol) is funny. "Where's the harm?" sounds like a high schooler getting his buddy to try a cigarette.



    Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.



    http://www.businessinsider.com/jordan-spieth-2015-season-unrealistic-2016-9?r=UK&IR=T
    04.png 67.7K
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,520 ✭✭


    And makes me wonder aboot the correlation between ability and equipment vs past ability and equipment. Surely here isn't any chance that more talent is being born today ? And there isn't more teachers. It has to be because of equipment and tech . At least partly.




    Not even close. There are 2.5x more people in the United States today than there were in 1940 (when Nicklaus was born). There are far more middle class families that can afford to raise expert golfers. People are bigger, stronger, and healthier than they have ever been. Sports are unsegregated - giving everybody an opportunity to participate.



    Improved equipment plays a role in the capability gap - just as it did for Nicklaus vs Harry Vardon - but the raw talent and ability to harness that talent is fundamentally different than it was in the 1960s.
  • TsarBombaTsarBomba Members Posts: 698
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    And makes me wonder aboot the correlation between ability and equipment vs past ability and equipment. Surely here isn't any chance that more talent is being born today ? And there isn't more teachers. It has to be because of equipment and tech . At least partly.




    Not even close. There are 2.5x more people in the United States today than there were in 1940 (when Nicklaus was born). There are far more middle class families that can afford to raise expert golfers. People are bigger, stronger, and healthier than they have ever been. Sports are unsegregated - giving everybody an opportunity to participate.



    Improved equipment plays a role in the capability gap - just as it did for Nicklaus vs Harry Vardon - but the raw talent and ability to harness that talent is fundamentally different than it was in the 1960s.




    +1
  • augustgolfaugustgolf Golf with dignity Coastal NCMembers Posts: 3,891 ✭✭
    edited Dec 11, 2017 #149
    Some of my thoughts:



    I loved it when I got a 44" graphite shafted driver for my HS graduation from the pro I had worked for the previous 3 years. I could hit it easily 15-20 yards further.



    Got my first 40 cc driver a few years ago & combined with the B330RX, I could still pop it off the tee around 270+/- at +50 years of age. Liked that too.



    But a hole over 470 yards, on a course designed over 30 years ago was created to accept a long iron or fairway wood approach.



    Holes designed to have short iron approaches should have much smaller greens complexes with much more trouble around them.



    This is why the older courses are being overpowered by today's players & equipment.



    How can we put that challenge back into the game without the extreme expense of greens re-designs?



    I'll admit I don't have answers but can see the problem clearly
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Pings from the beginning

    OGA member 1415
    or is it 1514...
    I don't remember exactly
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,141 ✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    Yes, very weak correlation between driving distance and success. I read the Titleist book report and it made me laugh. Using inferior stats like putts per round and driving accuracy will not help you build an accurate statistical model. Come on, Titleist, no P-values in your correlations?



    I'm against bifurcation and a rollback, but this PowerPoint (lol) is funny. "Where's the harm?" sounds like a high schooler getting his buddy to try a cigarette.



    Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.



    http://www.businessinsider.com/jordan-spieth-2015-season-unrealistic-2016-9?r=UK&IR=T




    Nice.



    Elite scoring averages



    Owned, nearly exclusively, by long drivers.







  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,520 ✭✭
    edited Dec 10, 2017 #151
    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    If you roll the ball back about 10% older courses can still be relevant; Augusta would not have to lengthen the 13th hole and others.




    For the life of me, I just can't understand why this is so important to some people. In almost every other major sport we see changing venues every 25 years or so. Why is it so important that (for example) Shinnecock Hills hosts major golf championships forever?




    This is a common thread: "the great old courses are irrelevant! Stop the madness!"



    Praytell, which courses are irrelevant? Name them. From 1960 - 2000, major championships have been held on 40 courses in the US (let's leave the Open Rota out of this for now...). 25 of these courses have held, or will hold, a significant PGA Tour event or major after 2010).



    The 15 that haven't? Legendary courses like Kemper Lakes Golf Club, Pecan Valley (NLE), Shoal Creek, Canterbury Golf Club, Columbine, etc.



    Looking down the list, Inverness is the only one that maybe coulda/shoulda/woulda but is just not long enough. This is a red herring. Merion proved it in 2013 and The Country Club will affirm it in 2022.
Sign In or Register to comment.