We have launched our new enhanced Editor. There is an overview and tutorial Here.

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

13468919
19

Comments

  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OH 3022Members Posts: 3,022
    Joined:  #152
    bscinstnct wrote:

    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.businessi...016-9?r=UK&IR=T




    Nice.



    Elite scoring averages



    Owned, nearly exclusively, by long drivers.




    Thanks. Now if only we could show a connection between lower scoring averages and winning...



    image/biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />
    Posted:
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5*
    On -, @44.5"

    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue
    On -, @41.5" 5W = 19*

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue
    On -, @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
    On -, @33.5"

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

    Advertisement
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf  3441Members Posts: 3,441
    Joined:  #153

    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 screw 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.




    That is based on your definition of "best skill". Given there is a 50 yard variance in the average distance Rory hits it versus Furyk and many others I'd say athletic ability is a key skill. If it was just technology (Trackman, drivers and golf balls) as you suggest wouldn't everyone would hit it as far as Rory?
    Posted:
    Driver - Home Ping G410 + 9.5*   Away Ping G400 Max 10*
    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
  • ShilgyShilgy Phoenix 11962Members Posts: 11,962
    Joined:  edited Dec 11, 2017 #154
    augustgolf wrote:


    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 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
    Reminds me of the story of Payne Stewart and the USGA before a US Open. At Olympic as I recall. Stewart was complaining about the setup, said a certain hole that played as a par five for the members but as a par four for the pros was unfair because the green was too small for such a long approach shot. The official responded with a question for Payne. Would he promise not to go for the green in two if played as a par five?

    So this talk about skill involved seems odd to me. It's not equipment that allows these players to be longer than players of the past. We'll sure some of it is but mostly it's the size and athleticism of the players. 40 years ago the "ideal" golf size was 5'10". Think guys like Tom Kite. Today 4"-6" taller is the norm. Larger arc, stronger and faster. Yes, some will mention a Justin Thomas or Fowler. Think of them as the modern version of Paul Runyan. Small but having tons of swing speed.

    As far as short game skills needed being diminished? Pffttt. It was a lot easier to stick a balata around the green with a 56° wedge like Seve to relatively slow soft greens than to do the same with a 60° look wedge to rock hard greens running 13+ on the stimp.

    Different? Yes. But every bit as much skill is needed today.
    Posted:
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    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... south carolina 28889Members Posts: 28,889
    Joined:  #155
    new2g0lf wrote:


    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 screw 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.




    That is based on your definition of "best skill". Given there is a 50 yard variance in the average distance Rory hits it versus Furyk and many others I'd say athletic ability is a key skill. If it was just technology (Trackman, drivers and golf balls) as you suggest wouldn't everyone would hit it as far as Rory?






    not my point.... my point is the bunching up of the distance pack.... large pack of guys from 285-300..... im just saying that those guys wouldnt win as often if they were hitting it 265-270 tops and having to play a less forgiving iron and ball into each par 4.... the guys who hit it 305-335 are the freaks who would dominate if the ball was rolled back..... drop them back to 300 compared to 265 and youd see how much more often they win.... im just saying there are guys who have tour cards who may not if equipment was rolled completely back... call that best skill, or more skill, or different skill.... same result either way....
    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  3- PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  54 60 s400
    Cameron GSS 1.5 009. Sound slot,  tungsten weights. 


  • raynorfan1raynorfan1  3790Members Posts: 3,790
    Joined:  #156


    not my point.... my point is the bunching up of the distance pack.... large pack of guys from 285-300..... im just saying that those guys wouldnt win as often if they were hitting it 265-270 tops and having to play a less forgiving iron and ball into each par 4.... the guys who hit it 305-335 are the freaks who would dominate if the ball was rolled back..... drop them back to 300 compared to 265 and youd see how much more often they win.... im just saying there are guys who have tour cards who may not if equipment was rolled completely back... call that best skill, or more skill, or different skill.... same result either way....




    Yeah, around the margin, no doubt there are guys who are amazing players who don't quite make it to the show (let alone become stars) because they don't have the distance to compete...even if their mid-iron game is superior. If you have below PGA average distance, an average short game, and the best mid-iron game in the world...you're probably selling insurance somewhere. But that doesn't seem wrong to me, it seems like life / competition.
    Posted:
  • cdnglfcdnglf  3504Members Posts: 3,504
    Joined:  #157
    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)




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

    Advertisement
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct  27749Members Posts: 27,749
    Joined:  edited Dec 10, 2017 #158
    rawdog wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:

    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.



    [url="http://www.businessinsider.com/jordan-spieth-2015-season-unrealistic-2016-9?r=UK&IR=T"]http://www.businessi...016-9?r=UK&IR=T[/url]




    Nice.



    Elite scoring averages



    Owned, nearly exclusively, by long drivers.




    Thanks. Now if only we could show a connection between lower scoring averages and winning...



    image/biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />




    ; )



    Posted:
  • UhitUhit  861Members Posts: 861
    Joined:  edited Dec 11, 2017 #159
    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.






    40 yards longer drives on average, to gain ONE single stroke!



    The graphic also shows, that you are able to gain more than TWO strokes over the field with your short game - Jordan Spieth!





    Even the variance of the short game of Jordan Spieth is bigger, than one stroke... image/read.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':read:' />



    ...again, the variance of Jordan Spieth short game makes a bigger difference, than a variance in driving distance of 40 yards! image/polling.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':polling:' />
    Posted:
    04.png 80.1K
  • Lancj1Lancj1  925Members Posts: 925
    Joined:  #160
    Bye wrote:

    Lancj1 wrote:

    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 -




    i get all that but why does it matter ? Seriously.




    Because it's really boring to watch!




    Don't agree. Each to their own!
    Posted:
  • Scooterboy59Scooterboy59  978Members Posts: 978
    Joined:  #161
    I find this ball debate tiresome. Courses can hold their own by conditioning. Very firm greens and fairways can make scoring difficult. They get perfect bunkers on tour, not like your local muni. Strategic pin placement is a must. When the greens are firm they will not challenge a tight hole position. If you watch these guys fly it to the hole and it stops. Tight lies around the green can make up and downs harder. My favorite holes are the drive-able par 4 like Rivera. That hole holds it own during that tournament. Heck there are guys that can hit a three wood on but, you see a lot of bogies and doubles on it.

    As I have said on plenty these type post. These guys now are in better shape and have more technology that can assist them to be the best golfer they can be.

    I hear that these guys are not as talented as professionals before and that's bull. As it says "These Guys are good". I see a lot of people over the course of a year hitting balls. Very ,very few hit it long. If you look at the tour and the firm conditions that they play in I would like to see just the carry measured and that would be a true measure of distance.
    Posted:
  • GolfrnutGolfrnut  7425Members Posts: 7,425
    Joined:  #162


    I find this ball debate tiresome. Courses can hold their own by conditioning. Very firm greens and fairways can make scoring difficult. They get perfect bunkers on tour, not like your local muni. Strategic pin placement is a must. When the greens are firm they will not challenge a tight hole position. If you watch these guys fly it to the hole and it stops. Tight lies around the green can make up and downs harder. My favorite holes are the drive-able par 4 like Rivera. That hole holds it own during that tournament. Heck there are guys that can hit a three wood on but, you see a lot of bogies and doubles on it.

    As I have said on plenty these type post. These guys now are in better shape and have more technology that can assist them to be the best golfer they can be.

    I hear that these guys are not as talented as professionals before and that's bull. As it says "These Guys are good". I see a lot of people over the course of a year hitting balls. Very ,very few hit it long. If you look at the tour and the firm conditions that they play in I would like to see just the carry measured and that would be a true measure of distance.




    The TM stats you see on TV are only carry as the monitor can't actually see roll(or it hitting the ground in all actuality). The guys hit it a long way and they truly are able to fly it 300+ for the longer players. It's not just the condition of the fairways playing a part.
    Posted:
    TM Supertri V2 w/ Speeder Evo II 6.1 TS
    TM Stage 2 Tour 14.5* w/ Diamana BB  S+ 70
    Taylormade P790 2 UDI w/ DG 105R 
    Taylormade R9 19* TP Rescue w/ Aldila Rip 85
    4-PW Nike VR Pro MBs w/ DG AMT White R300
    Callaway MD3 52* & 58* PM grind
    Odyssey MXM 1W
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Sean2Sean2  30952Members Posts: 30,952
    Joined:  #163
    Uhit wrote:

    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.






    40 yards longer drives on average, to gain ONE single stroke!



    The graphic also shows, that you are able to gain more than TWO strokes over the field with your short game - Jordan Spieth!





    Even the variance of the short game of Jordan Spieth is bigger, than one stroke... image/read.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':read:' />



    ...again, the variance of Jordan Spieth short game makes a bigger difference, than a variance in driving distance of 40 yards! image/polling.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':polling:' />




    My facility has a very good short game practice area. I spend a lot of time there. However, the vast majority of the members rarely visit it (which is fine by me), and are pounding drivers on the range instead. lol



    My short game in fairly good, I have had more than a couple of scratch golfers tell me they wish they had my short game. BUT, the short game isn't ****, there is no "BOOM BABY!", so for the most part it gets short shrift.



    How often do you see ads on TV promoting a piece of equipment that will enhance one's short game, versus ads that promote distance? I am waiting for an advertisement promoting a putter that will give the golfer 20 more feet of role.



    Distance is good, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me it has become an obsession to the exclusion of other aspects of the game that are just as critical.
    Posted:
  • nova6868nova6868  4826Members Posts: 4,826
    Joined:  edited Dec 11, 2017 #164
    Posted:
  • cxxcxx  3207Members Posts: 3,207
    Joined:  #165
    Shilgy wrote:

    augustgolf wrote:


    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 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
    Reminds me of the story of Payne Stewart and the USGA before a US Open. At Olympic as I recall. Stewart was complaining about the setup, said a certain hole that played as a par five for the members but as a par four for the pros was unfair because the green was too small for such a long approach shot. The official responded with a question for Payne. Would he promise not to go for the green in two if played as a par five?

    So this talk about skill involved seems odd to me. It's not equipment that allows these players to be longer than players of the past. We'll sure some of it is but mostly it's the size and athleticism of the players. 40 years ago the "ideal" golf size was 5'10". Think guys like Tom Kite. Today 4"-6" taker odd they norm. Larger arc, stronger and faster. Yes, some will mention a Justin Thomas or Fowler. Think of them as the modern version of Paul Runyan. Small but still having tons of seeing speed.

    As far as short game skills needed being diminished? Pffttt. It was a lot easier to stick a balata around the green with a 56° wedge like Seve to relatively slow soft greens than to do the same with a 60° look wedge to rock hard greens running 13+ on the stimp.

    Different? Yes. But every bit as much skill is needed today.




    Work out all you want, the data does not support your conjecture. Everyone's distance exploded with the change in clubs and again with the new ball. The charts are right in the "study". Same guys, more distance.



    Taller people with a longer arc do get some free distance. But why do you think that there were so few tall players before the equipment change. Distance was still important then. Take a look at George Archer standing over the ball and you'll find your answer.
    Posted:
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OH 3022Members Posts: 3,022
    Joined:  #166
    Sean2 wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    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.






    40 yards longer drives on average, to gain ONE single stroke!



    The graphic also shows, that you are able to gain more than TWO strokes over the field with your short game - Jordan Spieth!





    Even the variance of the short game of Jordan Spieth is bigger, than one stroke... image/read.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':read:' />



    ...again, the variance of Jordan Spieth short game makes a bigger difference, than a variance in driving distance of 40 yards! image/polling.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':polling:' />




    My facility has a very good short game practice area. I spend a lot of time there. However, the vast majority of the members rarely visit it (which is fine by me), and are pounding drivers on the range instead. lol



    My short game in fairly good, I have had more than a couple of scratch golfers tell me they wish they had my short game. BUT, the short game isn't ****, there is no "BOOM BABY!", so for the most part it gets short shrift.



    How often do you see ads on TV promoting a piece of equipment that will enhance one's short game, versus ads that promote distance? I am waiting for an advertisement promoting a putter that will give the golfer 20 more feet of role.



    Distance is good, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me it has become an obsession to the exclusion of other aspects of the game that are just as critical.




    If that's what you guys got out of the chart, I don't know what to say. Ignore the obvious pattern and look at the one outlier.



    You're correct, in the 2016-16 season, Spieth's advantage on the field was short game and putting. Strokes gained short game was .61, putting was .68, and off the tee was .64. Approaches were +.03, meaning he was only average in this area.



    The point of the chart and the accompanying article was that it was an outlier season, one unlikely to be repeated.



    It shows the results of one player, in one season.



    Can someone please refresh me on the 1/3 driving distance, 2/3 shot game thing? Is this a new equation someone came up with?
    Posted:
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5*
    On -, @44.5"

    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue
    On -, @41.5" 5W = 19*

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue
    On -, @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
    On -, @33.5"

    Maxfli SoftFli
  • Bad9Bad9  4508Members Posts: 4,508
    Joined:  #167
    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 -




    Where there many 469yd par 4's in the past?
    Posted:
    Ping G410 Plus 10.5°/Alta CB55 r flex
    Ping G400 7w/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 4h/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 5h/Alta CB r flex
    Ping IE1 6-U/CFS70 r flex
    Ping Glide 2.0 ES 58°/CFS70 r flex
    Mizuno Bettinardi C06
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf  3441Members Posts: 3,441
    Joined:  #168

    new2g0lf wrote:


    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 screw 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.




    That is based on your definition of "best skill". Given there is a 50 yard variance in the average distance Rory hits it versus Furyk and many others I'd say athletic ability is a key skill. If it was just technology (Trackman, drivers and golf balls) as you suggest wouldn't everyone would hit it as far as Rory?






    not my point.... my point is the bunching up of the distance pack.... large pack of guys from 285-300..... im just saying that those guys wouldnt win as often if they were hitting it 265-270 tops and having to play a less forgiving iron and ball into each par 4.... the guys who hit it 305-335 are the freaks who would dominate if the ball was rolled back..... drop them back to 300 compared to 265 and youd see how much more often they win.... im just saying there are guys who have tour cards who may not if equipment was rolled completely back... call that best skill, or more skill, or different skill.... same result either way....




    The stats show a bunch up but when you watch a round of golf, the freaks still have a distance advantage. Spieth might hit the ball 315 on a given hole that Rory hits it 345, there is still a disparity in distance regardless of what the averages show.



    We've also seen that distance is just one aspect of the game, Furyk is the shortest hitter but he also has the only 58, proving in the end those with the best overall skill set find their way to the top.
    Posted:
    Driver - Home Ping G410 + 9.5*   Away Ping G400 Max 10*
    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
  • george49george49  280ClubWRX Posts: 280
    Joined:  #169
    See 2013 US Open at Merion CC. Justin Rose +1 winning score ,course was shade under 7,000 yards.



    Grow rough, narrow fairways and firm up greens......
    Posted:
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1  3790Members Posts: 3,790
    Joined:  #170
    Bad9 wrote:

    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 -




    Where there many 469yd par 4's in the past?




    Four of the Par 4's in the 1973 US Open (Oakmont) were 450+, including #1 at 469 and #10 at 462.
    Posted:
  • ShilgyShilgy Phoenix 11962Members Posts: 11,962
    Joined:  #171
    cxx wrote:


    Work out all you want, the data does not support your conjecture. Everyone's distance exploded with the change in clubs and again with the new ball. The charts are right in the "study". Same guys, more distance.



    Taller people with a longer arc do get some free distance. But why do you think that there were so few tall players before the equipment change. Distance was still important then. Take a look at George Archer standing over the ball and you'll find your answer.
    Is that what this is? An excuse to not work out and be body positive? image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

    Yes, I am quite aware that the modern equipment is better able to accommodate the tall player. Are you aware that in spite of having perhaps the best short game ever the biggest reason for Tiger's reign was his long game? He had more of a strokes gained advantage in the long game than the short. All of the top tour players are long. Yes, some are longer than others but there are no players on tour hitting it 240. Does not matter how good the short game is they need to have a fair amount of length. And all tour players have a good short game. Like in anything else some are better than others but all can chip and roll the rock.

    Too many on here imo are looking at the rankings in the charts above and making false assumptions. 290 off the tee is not short. And yet some here are trying to say that Brian Harman is a short hitter at 289.9 off the tee AVERAGE last year. Please don't mistake a pros average for the typical amateur. The amateur thinks that his longest is how far he can hit it but also seems to think the pros average is far as he can hit it. Nothing of the sort.
    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!
  • Rapatt95Rapatt95 wow  570Members Posts: 570
    Joined:  #172
    nova6868 wrote:


    They want to see everyone’s score go up. The same guys who are longer would win, the same guys who are shorter would lose. But instead of the winning score being -25 after 4 days, it’d be -4. It’s nonsensical



    Posted:
    Titleist 909d3 Diamana Blue 60s
    Adams Tight Lies Tour 18* 5w Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Titleist 913h 19* Diamana Blue 82h s+ 
    Ben Hogan PTx 22*-34* C-Taper Lite 115x (Thank you GolfWRX and Ben Hogan!)
    Ben Hogan Ft Worth 15 37*-45* 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 1959 B60
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf  3441Members Posts: 3,441
    Joined:  edited Dec 11, 2017 #173
    Shilgy wrote:

    cxx wrote:


    Work out all you want, the data does not support your conjecture. Everyone's distance exploded with the change in clubs and again with the new ball. The charts are right in the "study". Same guys, more distance.



    Taller people with a longer arc do get some free distance. But why do you think that there were so few tall players before the equipment change. Distance was still important then. Take a look at George Archer standing over the ball and you'll find your answer.
    Is that what this is? An excuse to not work out and be body positive? image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

    Yes, I am quite aware that the modern equipment is better able to accommodate the tall player. Are you aware that in spite of having perhaps the best short game ever the biggest reason for Tiger's reign was his long game? He had more of a strokes gained advantage in the long game than the short. All of the top tour players are long. Yes, some are longer than others but there are no players on tour hitting it 240. Does not matter how good the short game is they need to have a fair amount of length. And all tour players have a good short game. Like in anything else some are better than others but all can chip and roll the rock.

    Too many on here imo are looking at the rankings in the charts above and making false assumptions. 290 off the tee is not short. And yet some here are trying to say that Brian Harman is a short hitter at 289.9 off the tee AVERAGE last year. Please don't mistake a pros average for the typical amateur. The amateur thinks that his longest is how far he can hit it but also seems to think the pros average is far as he can hit it. Nothing of the sort.




    So true, averages do not give the proper insight to distance. As I said, when Spieth hits it 315 yards, Rory or DJ put it out 345 yards. Averages factor in too many variables that can bury the actual performance potential of some of the longer hitters.
    Posted:
    Driver - Home Ping G410 + 9.5*   Away Ping G400 Max 10*
    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
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1  3790Members Posts: 3,790
    Joined:  #174
    Rapatt95 wrote:

    nova6868 wrote:


    They want to see everyone’s score go up. The same guys who are longer would win, the same guys who are shorter would lose. But instead of the winning score being -25 after 4 days, it’d be -4. It’s nonsensical




    Are we seeing a lot of / more events with scores in the -25 range?



    The 1999 PGA Season had 6 tournaments where the winning score was -20 or better. There have always been low scores.
    Posted:
  • augustgolfaugustgolf Golf with dignity Coastal NC 3940Members Posts: 3,940
    Joined:  #175
    Bad9 wrote:
    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 -




    Where there many 469yd par 4's in the past?


    No - but there wasn't that need. A long par 4, say 425, played driver (let's say 260, which was long) leaving 165, probably 6 iron, maybe 5. And the green was designed to have that type of iron played into it.



    Johnny Miller, no slouch for distance, played an exhibition on the course where I caddied as a kid. #12, straight away par 4, 451 from the tips, slight wind in his face (slight). Driver 3 wood to the front edge.



    Today, good players hit 7 or 8 iron under same conditions...less without the wind.



    The green is HUGE. If you were designing the hole to accept a 6, 7, 8, or 9 iron approach, the green would easily have been made half that size.



    I hated that hole...even at white tee distance (members). ..it still played around 410...still designed to hit mid-to - long iron for approach.



    And if you tried to hit the tee shot really hard but caught it a bit off center, the curve on the ball was crazy wild.



    The modern ball just doesn't curve as much, so you can wind up and try to hit it as far as you can with less of a "penalty" for a miss hit.



    As stated in a prior post: longer tee shot/shorter aporoach out of the rough is still easier than a shorter approach from the fairway.



    To a much larger than "normal" green for the expected length of shot



    ****...these long replies on a phone keyboard are tough on an old man's eyes & fingers
    Posted:
    Pings from the beginning

    OGA member 1415
    or is it 1514...
    I don't remember exactly
  • Bad9Bad9  4508Members Posts: 4,508
    Joined:  #176
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    Bad9 wrote:

    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 -




    Where there many 469yd par 4's in the past?




    Four of the Par 4's in the 1973 US Open (Oakmont) were 450+, including #1 at 469 and #10 at 462.




    Thanks as I have no idea about the lengths of some of the holes from years past, just an idea of overall length of the course.
    Posted:
    Ping G410 Plus 10.5°/Alta CB55 r flex
    Ping G400 7w/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 4h/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 5h/Alta CB r flex
    Ping IE1 6-U/CFS70 r flex
    Ping Glide 2.0 ES 58°/CFS70 r flex
    Mizuno Bettinardi C06
  • Rapatt95Rapatt95 wow  570Members Posts: 570
    Joined:  #177
    raynorfan1 wrote:
    Rapatt95 wrote:

    nova6868 wrote:


    They want to see everyone’s score go up. The same guys who are longer would win, the same guys who are shorter would lose. But instead of the winning score being -25 after 4 days, it’d be -4. It’s nonsensical




    Are we seeing a lot of / more events with scores in the -25 range?



    The 1999 PGA Season had 6 tournaments where the winning score was -20 or better. There have always been low scores.


    Yea, we have. I just looked at every leaderboard on the PGA Tour for the 16-17 season and there were 12 events with at least a -20, 3 greater than -25, and 1 event at -30. As well, there were 3 more events at -19.



    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against this, I’m just saying this is what others are upset about regarding scoring and overpowering courses.
    Posted:
    Titleist 909d3 Diamana Blue 60s
    Adams Tight Lies Tour 18* 5w Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Titleist 913h 19* Diamana Blue 82h s+ 
    Ben Hogan PTx 22*-34* C-Taper Lite 115x (Thank you GolfWRX and Ben Hogan!)
    Ben Hogan Ft Worth 15 37*-45* 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 1959 B60
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • golfer07840golfer07840 Smart ass from Northwest NJ 1818Members Posts: 1,818
    Joined:  #178
    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 -




    That was also on a resort course designed to accommodate the general public. Of course they are going to tear it apart.



    However, I don't think the ball is the only reason. These guys are so dialed in with their swings (Thanks Trackman), club fittings designed specifically to their swings, their workouts to gain more flexibility and strength and when the course isn't wet, the roll they get from fairways.



    This isn't just a "ball is going too far" argument. The ball is contributing sure, but it's not the be all end all to why Pro's are hitting it so far.
    Posted:

    Opinions are my own and are never to be taken seriously.
    and for God's sake, if you're going to whine about Jim Nantz, have the respect to spell his name correctly.
    WITTB:
    Driver: Callaway XHot Pro 9* Stiff
    3W: Tour Edge Exotics 13* Stiff
    3-4 HY: Callaway Rogue Stiff
    5-PW: Callaway Rogue Stiff steel, True Temper
    48* Titleist, 52* Callaway
    Putter: Nike Method
    Ball: ProV1 -- or whatever I find in the woods while looking for my ProV1

  • raynorfan1raynorfan1  3790Members Posts: 3,790
    Joined:  #179
    Rapatt95 wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:
    Rapatt95 wrote:

    nova6868 wrote:


    They want to see everyone’s score go up. The same guys who are longer would win, the same guys who are shorter would lose. But instead of the winning score being -25 after 4 days, it’d be -4. It’s nonsensical




    Are we seeing a lot of / more events with scores in the -25 range?



    The 1999 PGA Season had 6 tournaments where the winning score was -20 or better. There have always been low scores.


    Yea, we have. I just looked at every leaderboard on the PGA Tour for the 16-17 season and there were 12 events with at least a -20, 3 greater than -25, and 1 event at -30. As well, there were 3 more events at -19.



    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against this, I’m just saying this is what others are upset about regarding scoring and overpowering courses.




    Fair. I just spot checked a few of the big events and it didn't seem that far off. It's interesting (to me) how many of these super-low scores are in alternate field events and other borderline exhibitions. Look at some of the longstanding events, like the Canadian Open, and the record to par is in 1952.
    Posted:
  • Rapatt95Rapatt95 wow  570Members Posts: 570
    Joined:  #180
    raynorfan1 wrote:
    Rapatt95 wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:
    Rapatt95 wrote:

    nova6868 wrote:


    They want to see everyone’s score go up. The same guys who are longer would win, the same guys who are shorter would lose. But instead of the winning score being -25 after 4 days, it’d be -4. It’s nonsensical




    Are we seeing a lot of / more events with scores in the -25 range?



    The 1999 PGA Season had 6 tournaments where the winning score was -20 or better. There have always been low scores.


    Yea, we have. I just looked at every leaderboard on the PGA Tour for the 16-17 season and there were 12 events with at least a -20, 3 greater than -25, and 1 event at -30. As well, there were 3 more events at -19.



    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against this, I’m just saying this is what others are upset about regarding scoring and overpowering courses.




    Fair. I just spot checked a few of the big events and it didn't seem that far off. It's interesting (to me) how many of these super-low scores are in alternate field events and other borderline exhibitions. Look at some of the longstanding events, like the Canadian Open, and the record to par is in 1952.


    I was surprised at some of the names throwing up -23 and such
    Posted:
    Titleist 909d3 Diamana Blue 60s
    Adams Tight Lies Tour 18* 5w Aldila Tour Blue ATX75tx
    Titleist 913h 19* Diamana Blue 82h s+ 
    Ben Hogan PTx 22*-34* C-Taper Lite 115x (Thank you GolfWRX and Ben Hogan!)
    Ben Hogan Ft Worth 15 37*-45* 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 1959 B60
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • golfer07840golfer07840 Smart ass from Northwest NJ 1818Members Posts: 1,818
    Joined:  #181



    Isn't it also that the modern ball doesn't spin as much and makes it a lot easier to hit it straight?



    I wouldn't mind if they made the ball a little more like the old balata so guys could work it more and inferior ball strikers would be exposed.




    This is my gripe. Not total distance. It's that it's so easy to hit the high straight ball.




    Perhaps if you're part of the golfing elite.



    For those of us who play 3 times a month and are in the 14-17 hdcp range, there is nothing EASY about this game, no matter the type of ball we use.



    And I am in the MAJORITY of the golfing public
    Posted:

    Opinions are my own and are never to be taken seriously.
    and for God's sake, if you're going to whine about Jim Nantz, have the respect to spell his name correctly.
    WITTB:
    Driver: Callaway XHot Pro 9* Stiff
    3W: Tour Edge Exotics 13* Stiff
    3-4 HY: Callaway Rogue Stiff
    5-PW: Callaway Rogue Stiff steel, True Temper
    48* Titleist, 52* Callaway
    Putter: Nike Method
    Ball: ProV1 -- or whatever I find in the woods while looking for my ProV1

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.