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.

Future of Golf: Tech v. Tradition

I know this is definitely not the first (or the last) time this subject has been brought up, but I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game. I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense). There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.



That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.



Should courses become longer?

Should fairways become tighter?

Should there be more hazards/obstacles?



In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players? Maybe it's not the courses anymore and it's the field that will pose the greatest threat.. who knows!





I'm sure I'm being ignorant of a lot of things, but would love to hear everyone's thoughts!
Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
3H | CallawayRogue 19*
Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
Ball | TBD
«1

Comments

  • Dr. BlockDr. Block Advanced Members Posts: 602 ✭✭
    I think the Arnold Palmer Invitational showed us that thick rough can still be very relevant.
  • FergusonFerguson VAAdvanced Members Posts: 4,229 ✭✭
    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.
  • Dr. BlockDr. Block Advanced Members Posts: 602 ✭✭
    Speaking to the amateurs, if you want you can still practice tradition over technology. Personally, I have two sets of clubs; one modern and one traditional (70's era blades and persimmons). I spend the majority of the season playing the traditional set, and I find golf much more interesting because of it.
  • MelloYelloMelloYello Advanced Members Posts: 2,900 ✭✭
    edited March 11
    I suspect golf took a long time to become a truly developed sport wherein expert-level coaching and specific kinds of training are the norm for the game's elite players. It took awhile for people to figure out what was happening in the swing, let alone how to convey those same principles to other people on a regular basis. But today, the game's top players swing the club in near-textbook fashion.



    What's more, the majority of these players have been involved with golf their entire lives. And as a result, all of them can hit it long as a matter of course. It's just evolution that the game will go from a few great players to an entire field of guys who are incredible and that over time, the game will find longer and longer hitters. You'll still have an "elite" group at the top but you can't hope to put the competition genie back in the bottle once people see ways to beat their competitors and a natural path starts getting beaten down leading to what is considered "optimal."



    Instead of looking at the current era and thinking 'this isn't golf,' maybe we should marvel at how long it took for big hitters to emerge and establish their place? How do you defeat a big hitter who's also a good wedge player as well as a good putter? The only hope you have is being a reasonably long hitter yourself who's basically making everything on the greens!



    Why shouldn't someone who possesses the ability to bomb it 350 off the tee in a straight line have a massive advantage? Why shouldn't that player hit irons into Par-5's and wedges into Par-4's? I know that it seems inherently unjust for there not to be some way that the short hitters can more easily offset their disadvantage but that's just how it goes. All other things being equal, the guy who hits it longer is objectively better.





    Right now, the tour tricks out the greens. It makes getting up and down extra-ordinarily difficult. You can narrow the fairways and deepen the rough but I'm not sure who that's going to punish--the weak or the strong. If we have US Open conditions every week, the Dustin Johnsons are just going to hit 1- and 2-irons to the same spot as other guys are hitting driver and 3w. The LPGA is already in this position. The #1 female golfer in the world doesn't even carry a driver because she doesn't need it. She hits her 3w as far as the longest hitters and routinely hit's UDI's off the tee.



    But at the same time there are plenty of normal-length players who makes tons of money. How about Lydia Ko who domianted the LPGA a short time ago? How about Rickie Fowler who's clearly not hurting? How about Francisco Molinari who won the Open? How about YJS who won the Masters?



    I just don't see what the fuss is about. We see all sorts of winners. When a big-hitter wins we hear complaints about distance. Why not a little more admiration for what physical gifts these guys have and how golf has finally arrived such that we don't have guys out there who look like they sit in the cubicle next to me on their off days!
    Driver: TaylorMade M3 (10.50)
    Fairway: TaylorMade RBZ Black (16.50)

    Irons: Titleist 716 CB (3-Pw)
    Wedges: Vokey SM6 52.12 (F) / 56.14 (F) / 60.10 (S)
    Putter: Odyssey O-Works 2-Ball Red
  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Advanced Members Posts: 993 ✭✭
    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Let’s make short hitting amateurs hit even shorter that’s bound to grow the game
  • NJpatbeeNJpatbee Advanced Members Posts: 1,469 ✭✭
    We have had a couple of quantum leaps in distance improving clubs and balls over the last 25 years and as a 67 year old I am still on the same tees that I was at age 40 when I started - for me it is great. I do believe however that with the USGA restrictions we are pretty much maxed out from a pure equipment perspective. However, you cannot regulate the fitness, strength, and technique of today's pro golfers. I would leave today's equipment as is and for pro tournaments I would concentrate on the course - heavy rough, fairways that are not like most greens, and some additional water and sand into play. As someone mentioned above, the recent Arnold Palmer at Bay Hill had enough length to challenge the big boys with difficult rough protecting greens and plenty of water and sand on even the shortest par 4's.
  • vokiedokievokiedokie Members Posts: 29 ✭✭
    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Thanks for the insight! I enjoyed the quick answer on Fred, haha.



    The statements were actually excerpts from the book "The Match" by Mark Frost. It briefly noted on the "Re-Match" (2012: Davis Love & Nick Watney v. Rickie Fowler & Bubba Watson) that despite the technology obviously improving since the 1950s, the course was still a more than formidable opponent for today's Tour players.



    I'm also curious what you mean by dialing the ball back. Are you referring the the tech in balls or physically starting the balls further back? Sorry for the confusion!
    Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
    3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
    3H | CallawayRogue 19*
    Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
    Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
    Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
    Ball | TBD
  • vokiedokievokiedokie Members Posts: 29 ✭✭
    MelloYello wrote:


    I suspect golf took a long time to become a truly developed sport wherein expert-level coaching and specific kinds of training are the norm for the game's elite players. It took awhile for people to figure out what was happening in the swing, let alone how to convey those same principles to other people on a regular basis. But today, the game's top players swing the club in near-textbook fashion.



    What's more, the majority of these players have been involved with golf their entire lives. And as a result, all of them can hit it long as a matter of course. It's just evolution that the game will go from a few great players to an entire field of guys who are incredible and that over time, the game will find longer and longer hitters. You'll still have an "elite" group at the top but you can't hope to put the competition genie back in the bottle once people see ways to beat their competitors and a natural path starts getting beaten down leading to what is considered "optimal."



    Instead of looking at the current era and thinking 'this isn't golf,' maybe we should marvel at how long it took for big hitters to emerge and establish their place? How do you defeat a big hitter who's also a good wedge player as well as a good putter? The only hope you have is being a reasonably long hitter yourself who's basically making everything on the greens!



    Why shouldn't someone who possesses the ability to bomb it 350 off the tee in a straight line have a massive advantage? Why shouldn't that player hit irons into Par-5's and wedges into Par-4's? I know that it seems inherently unjust for there not to be some way that the short hitters can more easily offset their disadvantage but that's just how it goes. All other things being equal, the guy who hits it longer is objectively better.





    Right now, the tour tricks out the greens. It makes getting up and down extra-ordinarily difficult. You can narrow the fairways and deepen the rough but I'm not sure who that's going to punish--the weak or the strong. If we have US Open conditions every week, the Dustin Johnsons are just going to hit 1- and 2-irons to the same spot as other guys are hitting driver and 3w. The LPGA is already in this position. The #1 female golfer in the world doesn't even carry a driver because she doesn't need it. She hits her 3w as far as the longest hitters and routinely hit's UDI's off the tee.



    But at the same time there are plenty of normal-length players who makes tons of money. How about Lydia Ko who domianted the LPGA a short time ago? How about Rickie Fowler who's clearly not hurting? How about Francisco Molinari who won the Open? How about YJS who won the Masters?



    I just don't see what the fuss is about. We see all sorts of winners. When a big-hitter wins we hear complaints about distance. Why not a little more admiration for what physical gifts these guys have and how golf has finally arrived such that we don't have guys out there who look like they sit in the cubicle next to me on their off days!




    Oh, yeah you bring up a ton of good points! Just to be clear, I'm definitely not trying to rip apart the tech or the big hitters on tour. I was just curious what others thought because I know it can be a bit of a debate/fire starter, haha. But, yeah even Matt Kuchar winning a few events in the last few months have been a testament to "distance" not always being king.



    I feel like we can even look at this past Ryder Cup where the U.S. bombers were rendered useless.



    Thanks for the insight!
    Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
    3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
    3H | CallawayRogue 19*
    Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
    Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
    Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
    Ball | TBD
  • vokiedokievokiedokie Members Posts: 29 ✭✭
    GoGoErky wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is "marketing gibberish."





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Let's make short hitting amateurs hit even shorter that's bound to grow the game




    Haha! Sigh..
    Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
    3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
    3H | CallawayRogue 19*
    Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
    Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
    Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
    Ball | TBD
  • vokiedokievokiedokie Members Posts: 29 ✭✭
    NJpatbee wrote:


    We have had a couple of quantum leaps in distance improving clubs and balls over the last 25 years and as a 67 year old I am still on the same tees that I was at age 40 when I started - for me it is great. I do believe however that with the USGA restrictions we are pretty much maxed out from a pure equipment perspective. However, you cannot regulate the fitness, strength, and technique of today's pro golfers. I would leave today's equipment as is and for pro tournaments I would concentrate on the course - heavy rough, fairways that are not like most greens, and some additional water and sand into play. As someone mentioned above, the recent Arnold Palmer at Bay Hill had enough length to challenge the big boys with difficult rough protecting greens and plenty of water and sand on even the shortest par 4's.




    Yeah, that's definitely something I wasn't really taking into consideration when posting the original question. The fitness and athleticism of today's Tour players is on a totally different level from amateurs AND the Tour players of yesteryear. As a huge NBA fan, it kind of reminds me of how the 3-pt shot has evolved over the last few years. The range is getting further, the dunks are higher, etc.



    Great insight!
    Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
    3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
    3H | CallawayRogue 19*
    Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
    Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
    Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
    Ball | TBD
  • FergusonFerguson VAAdvanced Members Posts: 4,229 ✭✭
    vokiedokie wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Thanks for the insight! I enjoyed the quick answer on Fred, haha.



    The statements were actually excerpts from the book "The Match" by Mark Frost. It briefly noted on the "Re-Match" (2012: Davis Love & Nick Watney v. Rickie Fowler & Bubba Watson) that despite the technology obviously improving since the 1950s, the course was still a more than formidable opponent for today's Tour players.



    I'm also curious what you mean by dialing the ball back. Are you referring the the tech in balls or physically starting the balls further back? Sorry for the confusion!








    It's rumored Fred Couples once said the word ascertain.

    Enough said.





    Dial back the technology. It's the easiest and most cost effective way to make things "fair" for everyone.



    Wouldn’t you feel better buying golf balls that are fitted for you?



    How many times have you stood in the golf shop and looked at the back panel of a box of balls and find yourself memorized by pictures of ball flights and lots of empty promises?

    Don’t lie, we all read the boxes and think the ball could do more for us. But let’s face the facts - the back of the box is nothing but lies.





    Now imagine buying balls like you do pants (not shorts).

    Let’s say your size for pants is 34 x 32, so you walk up to the display for pants and pluck off a pair of 34 x 32 and chances are pretty good they will fit.





    Now apply it to golf balls. The customer needs three pieces of information:



    Average length off tee with driver x Average length with 7 iron x Average score



    A: 300+ x 170+ x <70

    B: 290 x 165 x 74

    C: 280 x 160 x 79

    D: 260 x 150 x 80

    E: 250 x 140 x 85

    F: 240 x 130 x 90

    G: <240 x <130 x 95





    A >>>>>>>ball gets hotter>>>>>>G





    Average length off tee with driver: 240

    Average length with 7 iron: 140

    Average score: 83





    This player would fall in the E product range.





    You can eliminate the sandbaggers by looking at the letter designation on their ball.

    If you run into a guy claiming to be a 15 and he’s playing a “G” ball, you can call him out as a liar.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    vokiedokie wrote:




    That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.



    Should courses become longer?

    Should fairways become tighter?

    Should there be more hazards/obstacles?




    PGA Tour winning scores have not been going down, so whatever the courses are doing is working.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭
    Ferguson wrote:




    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.






    or dial back the clubs. Hickory shafts and small wooden clubheads would make the game much more difficult.
  • vokiedokievokiedokie Members Posts: 29 ✭✭
    Ferguson wrote:

    vokiedokie wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Thanks for the insight! I enjoyed the quick answer on Fred, haha.



    The statements were actually excerpts from the book "The Match" by Mark Frost. It briefly noted on the "Re-Match" (2012: Davis Love & Nick Watney v. Rickie Fowler & Bubba Watson) that despite the technology obviously improving since the 1950s, the course was still a more than formidable opponent for today's Tour players.



    I'm also curious what you mean by dialing the ball back. Are you referring the the tech in balls or physically starting the balls further back? Sorry for the confusion!








    It's rumored Fred Couples once said the word ascertain.

    Enough said.





    Dial back the technology. It's the easiest and most cost effective way to make things "fair" for everyone.



    Wouldn’t you feel better buying golf balls that are fitted for you?



    How many times have you stood in the golf shop and looked at the back panel of a box of balls and find yourself memorized by pictures of ball flights and lots of empty promises?

    Don’t lie, we all read the boxes and think the ball could do more for us. But let’s face the facts - the back of the box is nothing but lies.





    Now imagine buying balls like you do pants (not shorts).

    Let’s say your size for pants is 34 x 32, so you walk up to the display for pants and pluck off a pair of 34 x 32 and chances are pretty good they will fit.





    Now apply it to golf balls. The customer needs three pieces of information:



    Average length off tee with driver x Average length with 7 iron x Average score



    A: 300+ x 170+ x <70

    B: 290 x 165 x 74

    C: 280 x 160 x 79

    D: 260 x 150 x 80

    E: 250 x 140 x 85

    F: 240 x 130 x 90

    G: <240 x <130 x 95





    A >>>>>>>ball gets hotter>>>>>>G





    Average length off tee with driver: 240

    Average length with 7 iron: 140

    Average score: 83





    This player would fall in the E product range.





    You can eliminate the sandbaggers by looking at the letter designation on their ball.

    If you run into a guy claiming to be a 15 and he’s playing a “G” ball, you can call him out as a liar.




    Dang, this would be a crazy system, haha. I see how this would work and kind of set up tiers to each golfer, but at the same time (playing devil's advocate), what about feeling too restricted? Golf is such a weird game of balancing regulations and what is permitted versus not, haha.



    But, dude, loving the thinking surrounding the ball. First time I've heard of a system like that!
    Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
    3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
    3H | CallawayRogue 19*
    Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
    Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
    Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
    Ball | TBD
  • vokiedokievokiedokie Members Posts: 29 ✭✭




    or dial back the clubs. Hickory shafts and small wooden clubheads would make the game much more difficult.




    Haha, imagine a Hickory Tour..
    Driver | Callaway Epic 9.5*
    3W | CallawayEpic SZ 15*
    3H | CallawayRogue 19*
    Irons 4-PW | Callaway Apex CF16
    Wedges | Titleist Vokey SM7 (50*, 54*, 60*)
    Putter | Scotty Cameron Newport 2
    Ball | TBD
  • FergusonFerguson VAAdvanced Members Posts: 4,229 ✭✭
    vokiedokie wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:

    vokiedokie wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Thanks for the insight! I enjoyed the quick answer on Fred, haha.



    The statements were actually excerpts from the book "The Match" by Mark Frost. It briefly noted on the "Re-Match" (2012: Davis Love & Nick Watney v. Rickie Fowler & Bubba Watson) that despite the technology obviously improving since the 1950s, the course was still a more than formidable opponent for today's Tour players.



    I'm also curious what you mean by dialing the ball back. Are you referring the the tech in balls or physically starting the balls further back? Sorry for the confusion!








    It's rumored Fred Couples once said the word ascertain.

    Enough said.





    Dial back the technology. It's the easiest and most cost effective way to make things "fair" for everyone.



    Wouldn’t you feel better buying golf balls that are fitted for you?



    How many times have you stood in the golf shop and looked at the back panel of a box of balls and find yourself memorized by pictures of ball flights and lots of empty promises?

    Don’t lie, we all read the boxes and think the ball could do more for us. But let’s face the facts - the back of the box is nothing but lies.





    Now imagine buying balls like you do pants (not shorts).

    Let’s say your size for pants is 34 x 32, so you walk up to the display for pants and pluck off a pair of 34 x 32 and chances are pretty good they will fit.





    Now apply it to golf balls. The customer needs three pieces of information:



    Average length off tee with driver x Average length with 7 iron x Average score



    A: 300+ x 170+ x <70

    B: 290 x 165 x 74

    C: 280 x 160 x 79

    D: 260 x 150 x 80

    E: 250 x 140 x 85

    F: 240 x 130 x 90

    G: <240 x <130 x 95





    A >>>>>>>ball gets hotter>>>>>>G





    Average length off tee with driver: 240

    Average length with 7 iron: 140

    Average score: 83





    This player would fall in the E product range.





    You can eliminate the sandbaggers by looking at the letter designation on their ball.

    If you run into a guy claiming to be a 15 and he’s playing a “G” ball, you can call him out as a liar.




    Dang, this would be a crazy system, haha. I see how this would work and kind of set up tiers to each golfer, but at the same time (playing devil's advocate), what about feeling too restricted? Golf is such a weird game of balancing regulations and what is permitted versus not, haha.



    But, dude, loving the thinking surrounding the ball. First time I've heard of a system like that!






    It's not restricted. You can play whatever ball you want - it's about being an "honest" player.



    Just think about the look on a guy's face (who claims to be "scratch") when you bend over, look down and see he's playing an F ball.
  • sdandreasdandrea Steve Advanced Members Posts: 2,316 ✭✭
    I thought Bayhill was a good test with thick rough and tough pins. Winning scores between 8 and 12 under are indicative of a tough but fair layout to me. Birdie fests can be fun to watch, but I'm a fan of a layout that keeps the short knockers in the game.
    Callaway Fusion
    Pinhawk SL 5w
    TM Burner Superfast 4h
    TM Burner XD 6-SW
    Scotty Fastback
  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Advanced Members Posts: 993 ✭✭
    Ferguson wrote:

    vokiedokie wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:

    vokiedokie wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Thanks for the insight! I enjoyed the quick answer on Fred, haha.



    The statements were actually excerpts from the book "The Match" by Mark Frost. It briefly noted on the "Re-Match" (2012: Davis Love & Nick Watney v. Rickie Fowler & Bubba Watson) that despite the technology obviously improving since the 1950s, the course was still a more than formidable opponent for today's Tour players.



    I'm also curious what you mean by dialing the ball back. Are you referring the the tech in balls or physically starting the balls further back? Sorry for the confusion!








    It's rumored Fred Couples once said the word ascertain.

    Enough said.





    Dial back the technology. It's the easiest and most cost effective way to make things "fair" for everyone.



    Wouldn’t you feel better buying golf balls that are fitted for you?



    How many times have you stood in the golf shop and looked at the back panel of a box of balls and find yourself memorized by pictures of ball flights and lots of empty promises?

    Don’t lie, we all read the boxes and think the ball could do more for us. But let’s face the facts - the back of the box is nothing but lies.





    Now imagine buying balls like you do pants (not shorts).

    Let’s say your size for pants is 34 x 32, so you walk up to the display for pants and pluck off a pair of 34 x 32 and chances are pretty good they will fit.





    Now apply it to golf balls. The customer needs three pieces of information:



    Average length off tee with driver x Average length with 7 iron x Average score



    A: 300+ x 170+ x <70

    B: 290 x 165 x 74

    C: 280 x 160 x 79

    D: 260 x 150 x 80

    E: 250 x 140 x 85

    F: 240 x 130 x 90

    G: <240 x <130 x 95





    A >>>>>>>ball gets hotter>>>>>>G





    Average length off tee with driver: 240

    Average length with 7 iron: 140

    Average score: 83





    This player would fall in the E product range.





    You can eliminate the sandbaggers by looking at the letter designation on their ball.

    If you run into a guy claiming to be a 15 and he’s playing a “G” ball, you can call him out as a liar.




    Dang, this would be a crazy system, haha. I see how this would work and kind of set up tiers to each golfer, but at the same time (playing devil's advocate), what about feeling too restricted? Golf is such a weird game of balancing regulations and what is permitted versus not, haha.



    But, dude, loving the thinking surrounding the ball. First time I've heard of a system like that!






    It's not restricted. You can play whatever ball you want - it's about being an "honest" player.



    Just think about the look on a guy's face (who claims to be "scratch") when you bend over, look down and see he's playing an F ball.




    There’s a large group now that aren’t honest. Look at courses and see playing wrong tees, ill fitted equipment and so on.



    Golf for many amateurs is about fun an enjoying company of their friends.
  • FergusonFerguson VAAdvanced Members Posts: 4,229 ✭✭
    To many people golf is about anger and pointing fingers.
  • DonatelloNobodieDonatelloNobodie Advanced Members Posts: 155 ✭✭
    Equipment will never be rolled back. Too much money at stake.



    How would you like to me a marketing VP at Titleist and get the assignment to develop a marketing campaign for a new ball that flies 20% shorter, or a new driver that is a lot harder to hit?



    The industry is based on marketing that uses the professional tour as a way to sell dreams to the average hacker. As long a golfers believe that they can buy a better game thru equipment, manufacturers will find ways to let the pros hit it better and make the amateur believe that technology improvements will transfer to him.



    The USGA and R&A could have controlled distance increases long ago, but declined due to pressure and threats from the equipment industry. Distance improvement will continue. Other restrictions will also be dropped. GPS and distance measuring devices. for example. Can green-reading devices be next?
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 15
    The thing most people miss in the "roll back the ball" debate is the faster swinging players see a massive gain with the newer ball technology where the average slower swinger barely sees any gains. You really have to swing over 100-105 mph to see major benefits. The idea of rolling back the ball is that it would barely effect the weekend player and slower swinger but would have a big effect on the super fast swinging player. The idea is to decrease the delta between the long hitter and short hitter. Not even close to the same as going back to hickory. This would make more players more competitive and keep many more courses relevant for top level play.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭


    The thing most people miss in the "roll back the ball" debate is the faster swinging players see a massive gain with the newer ball technology where the average slower swinger barely sees any gains. You really have to swing over 100-105 mph to see major benefits. The idea of rolling back the ball is that it would barely effect the weekend player and slower swinger but would have a big effect on the super fast swinging player. The idea is to decrease the delta between the long hitter and short hitter. Not even close to the same as going back to hickory. This would make more players more competitive and keep many more courses relevant for top level play.




    Explain to me the physics behind this delta
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • cristphotocristphoto Advanced Members Posts: 3,280 ✭✭
    Technology moves on. Worrying about the old golf courses becoming obsolete is foolish. Let the Senior tour and LPGA play the older courses that are maxed out yardage wise. The PGA Tour can play newer courses. Compare with baseball for example. The new parks being built are bigger because the players are stronger - just like current pro golfers.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 Advanced Members Posts: 4,923 ✭✭


    The idea is to decrease the delta between the long hitter and short hitter.




    Whose idea is that? I doubt that many would agree.
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16



    The idea is to decrease the delta between the long hitter and short hitter.




    Whose idea is that? I doubt that many would agree.




    Many people have come out in favor of rolling back the ball. Including Nicklaus, Palmer, Tiger and other top golf figures. I'm not sure it will ever happen but there is plenty of support for the idea. The other idea thrown around is bifurcation where the pros play w different equipment. This is what Tiger supports, roll back ball for pros keep juiced ball for Ams. Will be interesting to see if something happens w this I believe it's now or never and I know the USGA has indicated more than once they are working on a decision.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    cristphoto wrote:


    Technology moves on. Worrying about the old golf courses becoming obsolete is foolish. Let the Senior tour and LPGA play the older courses that are maxed out yardage wise. The PGA Tour can play newer courses. Compare with baseball for example. The new parks being built are bigger because the players are stronger - just like current pro golfers.




    Part of the issue is new courses are becoming obsolete too. Dr Mike Hurdzan told me at the 2013 Presidents Cup that he was super excited about Erin Hills getting the US Open and how he had designed a par 5 finishing hole that is uphill and almost 700y that the pros won't be able to hit in 2. A few years later the pros regularly hit that green in 2 I specifically recall Rickie Fowler hitting it with a long iron.



    Another example after the 2017 PGA they interviewed Dustin Johnson who was complaining about one of the par 4 holes that forced a layup off the tee and forced him to hit 4 iron into the green each day. He made the comment that it was THE FIRST TIME ALL YEAR he had a hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a green on a par 4.

    Post edited by Unknown User on
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • DonatelloNobodieDonatelloNobodie Advanced Members Posts: 155 ✭✭
    I don't understand how a course can "become obsolete". Low score wins. Who cares if it is 30 under? Why try to keep building longer courses?
  • GoGoErkyGoGoErky Advanced Members Posts: 993 ✭✭


    I don't understand how a course can "become obsolete". Low score wins. Who cares if it is 30 under? Why try to keep building longer courses?




    Optics. For whatever reason some people hate seeing the best in the world go low which I thought the object of every round was to shoot the lowest score you can
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭

    cristphoto wrote:


    Technology moves on. Worrying about the old golf courses becoming obsolete is foolish. Let the Senior tour and LPGA play the older courses that are maxed out yardage wise. The PGA Tour can play newer courses. Compare with baseball for example. The new parks being built are bigger because the players are stronger - just like current pro golfers.




    Part of the issue is new courses are becoming obsolete too. Dr Mike Hurdzan told me at the 2013 Presidents Cup that he was super excited about Erin Hills getting the US Open and how he had designed a par 5 finishing hole that is uphill and almost 700y that the pros won't be able to hit in 2. A few years later the pros regularly hit that green in 2 I specifically recall Rickie Fowler hitting it with a long iron.



    Another example after the 2017 PGA they interviewed Dustin Johnson who was complaining about one of the par 4 holes that forced a layup off the tee and forced him to hit 4 iron into the green each day. He made the comment that it was THE FIRST TIME ALL YEAR he had a hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a green on a par 4.




    If you understand course design then you understand how someone reaches a 700 yd par 5 in two. Don't make it a million yards downhill and don't make it rock hard and no one will ever reach in two unless it's downwind.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    Dustin johnson hits his driver 320-330 without juiced fairways. He hits a 6 iron probably like 200. So how often do you think a par 4 should pay 520 or 530? I don't get the things you are inferring. Yes if you hit the ball very far you will not be hitting long irons into par 4s very often.



    I see no evidence the new balls benefit fast swings more than slow ones.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    Stop making the courses baked out and 7500 yards is suddenly a long course. Make them lush with long rough. 7500 yards is nothing if every drive rolls 50 yards. Water the course really. Super easy. Not sure how no one can figure it out. These guys don't fly it 350
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    pinhigh27 wrote:


    cristphoto wrote:


    Technology moves on. Worrying about the old golf courses becoming obsolete is foolish. Let the Senior tour and LPGA play the older courses that are maxed out yardage wise. The PGA Tour can play newer courses. Compare with baseball for example. The new parks being built are bigger because the players are stronger - just like current pro golfers.




    Part of the issue is new courses are becoming obsolete too. Dr Mike Hurdzan told me at the 2013 Presidents Cup that he was super excited about Erin Hills getting the US Open and how he had designed a par 5 finishing hole that is uphill and almost 700y that the pros won't be able to hit in 2. A few years later the pros regularly hit that green in 2 I specifically recall Rickie Fowler hitting it with a long iron.



    Another example after the 2017 PGA they interviewed Dustin Johnson who was complaining about one of the par 4 holes that forced a layup off the tee and forced him to hit 4 iron into the green each day. He made the comment that it was THE FIRST TIME ALL YEAR he had a hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a green on a par 4.




    If you understand course design then you understand how someone reaches a 700 yd par 5 in two. Don't make it a million yards downhill and don't make it rock hard and no one will ever reach in two unless it's downwind.




    18 at Erin Hills is uphill already. I promise I have a good understanding of course design and the guy I was talking to was the guy who actually designed the course.



    It's more about how far these guys can now fly it in the air than anything.



    My point about Dustin only illustrates how far the long hitters hit the ball now with the current technology. He didn't hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a par 4 until the PGA Championship.



    That's a good point too about a course being "obsolete" low score wins so have at it. The question is do we want par 5s to be reachable in 2 for most of the field all the time, do we want to see extremely low scores win and do we want distance to be the most important factor when it comes to being a top level golfer.



    Simply rolling back the ball 20% automatically makes the distance between the longer hitter and shorter hitter less. Also when the technology switched to solid core balls and the ball started to fly further it was not a simple % increase. The players that swung harder saw a larger increase percentage wise of distance. If you didn't swing 100-105mph you saw very little gain. If you were over that number you saw a larger percentage gain. It's about hitting it hard enough to really compress the ball some do and some don't and those that do see a larger increase in distance with the newer balls and technology.



    I personally think bifurcation is the most likely outcome.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    No one is flying it that much further than Daly did. 400 drives don't fly 380 they fly 320. It's much ado about nothing. Make the courses softer.



    People were flying it 300 20 yards ago.



    It's a basic math problem. To hit it 700 yards uphill in 2 shots you're getting a ton of roll. Extremely simple. No one is hitting it 700 in 2 shots when it's wet.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    pinhigh27 wrote:


    No one is flying it that much further than Daly did. 400 drives don't fly 380 they fly 320. It's much ado about nothing. Make the courses softer.



    People were flying it 300 20 yards ago.



    It's a basic math problem. To hit it 700 yards uphill in 2 shots you're getting a ton of roll. Extremely simple. No one is hitting it 700 in 2 shots when it's wet.




    The average drive on the PGA tour is up 25 yards from 20 years ago and not one player averaged over 300 yards for the 1998 season (20y ago). John Daly was close but just under.



    Do you attribute that difference entirely to firmer conditions?



    I don't think the conditions got that much firmer from 2013 when I had that conversation with Dr Hurdzan to 2017 when they played the tournament that it would make any kind of significant difference. Also if you look at the hole in question the second shot is all carry over bunkers from where those guys were hitting from.



    To prove my point please watch this clip of Justin Thomas. 299 uphill (little downwind) 3 wood over bunkers that lands soft and stops on the green next to the hole. No ton of roll needed.







    To be fair yes if you soaked out a course and made it wetter it would play longer but your bringing a whole host of other issues into play and making the game very one dimensional.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • DonatelloNobodieDonatelloNobodie Advanced Members Posts: 155 ✭✭

    pinhigh27 wrote:


    cristphoto wrote:


    Technology moves on. Worrying about the old golf courses becoming obsolete is foolish. Let the Senior tour and LPGA play the older courses that are maxed out yardage wise. The PGA Tour can play newer courses. Compare with baseball for example. The new parks being built are bigger because the players are stronger - just like current pro golfers.




    Part of the issue is new courses are becoming obsolete too. Dr Mike Hurdzan told me at the 2013 Presidents Cup that he was super excited about Erin Hills getting the US Open and how he had designed a par 5 finishing hole that is uphill and almost 700y that the pros won't be able to hit in 2. A few years later the pros regularly hit that green in 2 I specifically recall Rickie Fowler hitting it with a long iron.



    Another example after the 2017 PGA they interviewed Dustin Johnson who was complaining about one of the par 4 holes that forced a layup off the tee and forced him to hit 4 iron into the green each day. He made the comment that it was THE FIRST TIME ALL YEAR he had a hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a green on a par 4.




    If you understand course design then you understand how someone reaches a 700 yd par 5 in two. Don't make it a million yards downhill and don't make it rock hard and no one will ever reach in two unless it's downwind.




    18 at Erin Hills is uphill already. I promise I have a good understanding of course design and the guy I was talking to was the guy who actually designed the course.



    It's more about how far these guys can now fly it in the air than anything.



    My point about Dustin only illustrates how far the long hitters hit the ball now with the current technology. He didn't hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a par 4 until the PGA Championship.



    That's a good point too about a course being "obsolete" low score wins so have at it. The question is do we want par 5s to be reachable in 2 for most of the field all the time, do we want to see extremely low scores win and do we want distance to be the most important factor when it comes to being a top level golfer.



    Simply rolling back the ball 20% automatically makes the distance between the longer hitter and shorter hitter less. Also when the technology switched to solid core balls and the ball started to fly further it was not a simple % increase. The players that swung harder saw a larger increase percentage wise of distance. If you didn't swing 100-105mph you saw very little gain. If you were over that number you saw a larger percentage gain. It's about hitting it hard enough to really compress the ball some do and some don't and those that do see a larger increase in distance with the newer balls and technology.



    I personally think bifurcation is the most likely outcome.




    "The question is do we want par 5s to be reachable in 2 for most of the field all the time" - Why care? Par is just a number..... Call them par 4's, if that makes one feel better.



    "do we want to see extremely low scores win" - lowest score always wins. What that number is, relative to par, matters not.



    "and do we want distance to be the most important factor when it comes to being a top level golfer." - An argument can be made that putting is the most important factor for professionals, certainly equal to driving distance.



    Why the need to see pros score higher, relative to par? The average golfer can't come close to shooting even par - should we build shorter courses for them?
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    I don't understand your point. Show me somebody reaching a 700 yd uphill hole in two without significant roll. Yes some can hit 3w 300 off deck if they lace it. You still need a 400+ yd drive which no one can do without tremendous roll. It's just not happening mathematically unless we're cutting off yardage with angles and etc. Again, no one can reach a 700 yd hole in two without wind, elevation or rock hard conditions.



    It's not just the ball. People are in better shape, we better understand launch conditions necessary to hit ball far. The clubs are more forgiving enabling people to swing at essentially max speed without huge misses being common for elite players. Attributing it all to the ball makes no sense. Does the ball help? Absolutely but it's not the whole story.



    People get better at sports over time. It is logical and completely expected that the 6000 yd courses of the 1800s would be rendered a joke by people better at golf, with better swings, better technology, better clubs and etc. It happens to all sports.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    In that clip Thomas has a helping wind and the ball rolls 5+ yards. All of these things matter. Maybe the ball adds 10, the wind adds 5, roll adds 5, the elevation there is a little above sea level so that adds a couple. So you have a guy who hits 3 wood 275 off deck now hitting it 300 and everyone loses their mind and claims its the ball, when it's multifactorial.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    Thats why you frame the competition as Justin Thomas vs Dustin johnson. Not Thomas vs Erin hills. People run the mile faster and faster, does that mean the mile is a bad test? The competition is in terms of the competitors, not the course.
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • sdandreasdandrea Steve Advanced Members Posts: 2,316 ✭✭
    Swimming records keep falling. Maybe we should thicken the water. 20 pound Speedos? Lengthen the yard/meter? 😊
    Callaway Fusion
    Pinhawk SL 5w
    TM Burner Superfast 4h
    TM Burner XD 6-SW
    Scotty Fastback
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16


    pinhigh27 wrote:


    cristphoto wrote:


    Technology moves on. Worrying about the old golf courses becoming obsolete is foolish. Let the Senior tour and LPGA play the older courses that are maxed out yardage wise. The PGA Tour can play newer courses. Compare with baseball for example. The new parks being built are bigger because the players are stronger - just like current pro golfers.




    Part of the issue is new courses are becoming obsolete too. Dr Mike Hurdzan told me at the 2013 Presidents Cup that he was super excited about Erin Hills getting the US Open and how he had designed a par 5 finishing hole that is uphill and almost 700y that the pros won't be able to hit in 2. A few years later the pros regularly hit that green in 2 I specifically recall Rickie Fowler hitting it with a long iron.



    Another example after the 2017 PGA they interviewed Dustin Johnson who was complaining about one of the par 4 holes that forced a layup off the tee and forced him to hit 4 iron into the green each day. He made the comment that it was THE FIRST TIME ALL YEAR he had a hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a green on a par 4.




    If you understand course design then you understand how someone reaches a 700 yd par 5 in two. Don't make it a million yards downhill and don't make it rock hard and no one will ever reach in two unless it's downwind.




    18 at Erin Hills is uphill already. I promise I have a good understanding of course design and the guy I was talking to was the guy who actually designed the course.



    It's more about how far these guys can now fly it in the air than anything.



    My point about Dustin only illustrates how far the long hitters hit the ball now with the current technology. He didn't hit a club longer than a 6 iron into a par 4 until the PGA Championship.



    That's a good point too about a course being "obsolete" low score wins so have at it. The question is do we want par 5s to be reachable in 2 for most of the field all the time, do we want to see extremely low scores win and do we want distance to be the most important factor when it comes to being a top level golfer.



    Simply rolling back the ball 20% automatically makes the distance between the longer hitter and shorter hitter less. Also when the technology switched to solid core balls and the ball started to fly further it was not a simple % increase. The players that swung harder saw a larger increase percentage wise of distance. If you didn't swing 100-105mph you saw very little gain. If you were over that number you saw a larger percentage gain. It's about hitting it hard enough to really compress the ball some do and some don't and those that do see a larger increase in distance with the newer balls and technology.



    I personally think bifurcation is the most likely outcome.




    "The question is do we want par 5s to be reachable in 2 for most of the field all the time" - Why care? Par is just a number..... Call them par 4's, if that makes one feel better.



    "do we want to see extremely low scores win" - lowest score always wins. What that number is, relative to par, matters not.



    "and do we want distance to be the most important factor when it comes to being a top level golfer." - An argument can be made that putting is the most important factor for professionals, certainly equal to driving distance.



    Why the need to see pros score higher, relative to par? The average golfer can't come close to shooting even par - should we build shorter courses for them?




    All of that seems to matter to the USGA/R&A, Augusta National and others in the game otherwise we wouldnt even be having this conversation and they wouldn't setup courses for championships the way they do. Augusta wouldn't be building longer tees and spending millions of dollars to buy extra land from Augusta CC so they can lengthen 13.



    They even tried almost 10 years ago when they changed the groove rule to try to combat the "bomb and gouge" game that was developing. The idea was to make distance less important and accuracy more important. It didn't work but it was an attempt to combat the same issues that are being discussed today.



    We could just give into all of it that's certainly an option.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    pinhigh27 wrote:


    I don't understand your point. Show me somebody reaching a 700 yd uphill hole in two without significant roll. Yes some can hit 3w 300 off deck if they lace it. You still need a 400+ yd drive which no one can do without tremendous roll. It's just not happening mathematically unless we're cutting off yardage with angles and etc. Again, no one can reach a 700 yd hole in two without wind, elevation or rock hard conditions.



    It's not just the ball. People are in better shape, we better understand launch conditions necessary to hit ball far. The clubs are more forgiving enabling people to swing at essentially max speed without huge misses being common for elite players. Attributing it all to the ball makes no sense. Does the ball help? Absolutely but it's not the whole story.



    People get better at sports over time. It is logical and completely expected that the 6000 yd courses of the 1800s would be rendered a joke by people better at golf, with better swings, better technology, better clubs and etc. It happens to all sports.




    The hole was 667 that day so JT his his drive 368 which is not that out of the ordinary for guys on Tour these days.



    I never once said it was all the ball. Quite the contrary, there are MANY different variables that have helped increase distance. I just happen to think the ball is the most likely variable for the USGA/R&A to change/regulate. We will see.



    Were not talking about getting better at golf just longer. They are not always the same thing.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    sdandrea wrote:


    Swimming records keep falling. Maybe we should thicken the water. 20 pound Speedos? Lengthen the yard/meter? 😊




    Nobody is complaining that the guys on the long drive tour are hitting it further. That's the only measure of their skill like speed the only measure of swimming skill. The unique thing about golf traditionally is it takes multiple skills to succeed.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭

    pinhigh27 wrote:


    I don't understand your point. Show me somebody reaching a 700 yd uphill hole in two without significant roll. Yes some can hit 3w 300 off deck if they lace it. You still need a 400+ yd drive which no one can do without tremendous roll. It's just not happening mathematically unless we're cutting off yardage with angles and etc. Again, no one can reach a 700 yd hole in two without wind, elevation or rock hard conditions.



    It's not just the ball. People are in better shape, we better understand launch conditions necessary to hit ball far. The clubs are more forgiving enabling people to swing at essentially max speed without huge misses being common for elite players. Attributing it all to the ball makes no sense. Does the ball help? Absolutely but it's not the whole story.



    People get better at sports over time. It is logical and completely expected that the 6000 yd courses of the 1800s would be rendered a joke by people better at golf, with better swings, better technology, better clubs and etc. It happens to all sports.




    The hole was 667 that day so JT his his drive 368 which is not that out of the ordinary for guys on Tour these days.



    I never once said it was all the ball. Quite the contrary, there are MANY different variables that have helped increase distance. I just happen to think the ball is the most likely variable for the USGA/R&A to change/regulate. We will see.



    Were not talking about getting better at golf just longer. They are not always the same thing.




    jt isn't hitting it 368 without rock-hard fairway or help
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • golfandfishinggolfandfishing Advanced Members Posts: 3,349 ✭✭
    GoGoErky wrote:

    Ferguson wrote:


    It's a wonderful time of day for another episode of post breakdown from Ferg.







    Re: I'm curious what y'all think about the increase in technology in golf clubs and how it's affecting the professional game.

    I am not a professional. As an amateur – I love it. However, I do realize 50% of the tech gains is “marketing gibberish.”





    Re: I know Fred Couples voiced his opinion about this saying something along the lines of how golf was being ruined (in a sense).

    Fred is not a bright guy.





    Re: There's also been statements that courses that were well designed (e.g. Cypress) withstood the test of time and still poses great challenge for even the longest of hitters.

    What statements? Who said this?





    Re: That being said, there must be a break point where the courses just aren't long enough to continue to pose a challenge for Tour players.

    Marketing, advertising and the insatiable desire for more tour cash will ensure there will never be a break point.





    Re: Should courses become longer?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should fairways become tighter?

    No. Dial back the ball.



    Re: Should there be more hazards/obstacles?

    No. Dial back the ball.





    Re: In short, how do courses keep up with the technology and remain challenging for Tour players?

    Tour players, at their best, can shot a 65 at any course. I still have yet to see a competitive round with a player making 18 straight birdies.




    Let’s make short hitting amateurs hit even shorter that’s bound to grow the game




    What bs. Did making the ball supercharged grow the game? Seems like since the prov1 came out all I have heard is that the game is dying.



    The ball is longer now than ever and play is shrinking. Every point of “contention” in golf always has someone throw out “grow the game rubble rubble rubble....”. Change the rules, it will grow the game. Rules changes then became a reason the game isn’t growing. Tour balatas and Stratas weren’t keeping people from playing, and prov1s aren’t getting people on the course.
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    pinhigh27 wrote:


    pinhigh27 wrote:


    I don't understand your point. Show me somebody reaching a 700 yd uphill hole in two without significant roll. Yes some can hit 3w 300 off deck if they lace it. You still need a 400+ yd drive which no one can do without tremendous roll. It's just not happening mathematically unless we're cutting off yardage with angles and etc. Again, no one can reach a 700 yd hole in two without wind, elevation or rock hard conditions.



    It's not just the ball. People are in better shape, we better understand launch conditions necessary to hit ball far. The clubs are more forgiving enabling people to swing at essentially max speed without huge misses being common for elite players. Attributing it all to the ball makes no sense. Does the ball help? Absolutely but it's not the whole story.



    People get better at sports over time. It is logical and completely expected that the 6000 yd courses of the 1800s would be rendered a joke by people better at golf, with better swings, better technology, better clubs and etc. It happens to all sports.




    The hole was 667 that day so JT his his drive 368 which is not that out of the ordinary for guys on Tour these days.



    I never once said it was all the ball. Quite the contrary, there are MANY different variables that have helped increase distance. I just happen to think the ball is the most likely variable for the USGA/R&A to change/regulate. We will see.



    Were not talking about getting better at golf just longer. They are not always the same thing.




    jt isn't hitting it 368 without rock-hard fairway or help




    JT says he carries it 310 when they went through his yardages in Golf Magazine. Having it end up going 368 when u carry it 310 is not unreasonable and does not require any crazy bounces or rock hard baked out fairways. Remember he is carrying the ball 10 yards longer than the longest guy on Tour was hitting it with carry and roll 20 years ago. The ball is always going to roll when it hits the ground with a driver and when u hit it as hard as JT does with 2000 or less spin your going to get alot of roll. I'm not sure how that's relevant.



    I'd actually argue that fitting capabilities and understanding launch characteristics as well as larger drivers that are infinitely more forgiving on off center hits (think about it this way if I swing 100mph and you swing 110mph you will virtually always hit it past me even if you miss the center drastically and I hit it dead nuts square. Distance off the tee is no longer about hitting it solid its about swinging as fast as possible and making sure the face is close to square) has contributed to the new crop of longer hitters moreso than the ball or anything else. That said you can't outlaw fitting, or unlearn proper launch characteristics and they are not going to goto a smaller headed driver standard so that leaves the ball as the only option to combat the distance increase.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • ClambakeClambake Advanced Members Posts: 602 ✭✭
    Why does golf seem to be the only sport that is obsessively worried about scoring improving? So what if scoring is lower now than it used to be? Fifty years ago the record for the mile was 3:51, now it stands at 3:43 (and it was only 1954 that someone cracked 4 minutes). The pole vault was 17' 10", now it is over 20'. The 100m dash was 9.95, now it's 9.57. One of the most dominating players in the NBA (Russell) was a 6'10" center; now that would be a small forward.



    So what if scores get lower? If someone goes out and wins a US Open shooting -12, that doesn't make the winning score of 50 years ago any less an achievement (which was Moody at +1). Shooting a -20 at a British Open doesn't make Jacklin's -4 fifty years ago any less impressive. Golf has shown it can move past the gutta percha and hickories.



    Let the professionals play the game at the highest level. Track & Field doesn't make Bolt run in 5 pound ankle weights to keep the record in check. They aren't making vaulting poles 2 feet shorter to keep vaulters under 18 feet. They don't put a little drag chute behind swimmers to keep Phelps from eclipsing early records. They aren't making the basket 12 feet high to make it harder to shoot a basketball.



    Athletes are bigger and stronger, and advances in agronomy and maintenance have made golf courses much more consistent, with faster fairways and much faster greens. Let the scoring fall where it will. People go to track and swimming meets and love to see records broken, and they love to watch the best golfers in the world make birdies and occasional eagles. The only thing that throttling back equipment or making course a lot longer will do is disadvantage the common player and make the courses much more expensive. It won't throttle the Tour players nearly as much as it will throttle the growth of the game.
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    Clambake wrote:


    Why does golf seem to be the only sport that is obsessively worried about scoring improving? So what if scoring is lower now than it used to be? Fifty years ago the record for the mile was 3:51, now it stands at 3:43 (and it was only 1954 that someone cracked 4 minutes). The pole vault was 17' 10", now it is over 20'. The 100m dash was 9.95, now it's 9.57. One of the most dominating players in the NBA (Russell) was a 6'10" center; now that would be a small forward.



    So what if scores get lower? If someone goes out and wins a US Open shooting -12, that doesn't make the winning score of 50 years ago any less an achievement (which was Moody at +1). Shooting a -20 at a British Open doesn't make Jacklin's -4 fifty years ago any less impressive. Golf has shown it can move past the gutta percha and hickories.



    Let the professionals play the game at the highest level. Track & Field doesn't make Bolt run in 5 pound ankle weights to keep the record in check. They aren't making vaulting poles 2 feet shorter to keep vaulters under 18 feet. They don't put a little drag chute behind swimmers to keep Phelps from eclipsing early records. They aren't making the basket 12 feet high to make it harder to shoot a basketball.



    Athletes are bigger and stronger, and advances in agronomy and maintenance have made golf courses much more consistent, with faster fairways and much faster greens. Let the scoring fall where it will. People go to track and swimming meets and love to see records broken, and they love to watch the best golfers in the world make birdies and occasional eagles. The only thing that throttling back equipment or making course a lot longer will do is disadvantage the common player and make the courses much more expensive. It won't throttle the Tour players nearly as much as it will throttle the growth of the game.




    I agree in the sense that I have no problem with high level players showing high level skills and shooting a low number. I love seeing that alot more than I love seeing tricked up silly course setups. What I don't want to see is distance being the main and all important factor of who can be a high level player. There is ALOT more to golf than hitting it far. This discussion is not about scoring its about distance which again are and should be 2 different things. The other examples you give are one dimensional sports/skills that are specifically measuring one thing. Golf requires many skills to be successful not just bombing it far.
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • pinhigh27pinhigh27 Advanced Members Posts: 9,571 ✭✭
    60 yards of roll on a drive = rock hard fairways. Not sure where you play? I've literally never had one roll 60 in my entire golfing career
    How to be in better shape for golf?
    Become a better athlete.
    Don't worry about golf specific.
    Compound lifts w/ linear progress
    Don't forget the mobility work.
    More results, more functional

    Spin is not your enemy, everything is a trade-off.
    17 * 1700 goes really far, but doesn't go very straight or consistent
    8* 3500 goes really straight, but doesn't go very far
    Answer for most is somewhere in the middle.
    Pga tour driver avg launch conditions: 11* 2700
  • FairwayFredFairwayFred Sponsors Posts: 3,950 ✭✭
    edited March 16
    pinhigh27 wrote:


    60 yards of roll on a drive = rock hard fairways. Not sure where you play? I've literally never had one roll 60 in my entire golfing career




    You also don't have 175+ mph ball speed with 1800 rpm spin (I assume). Not saying that's not a long drive for him but if u average 310 in the air, 368 total is not totally unreasonable for a drive that you really catch and swing hard at. (similar to the swing and strike on the next shot when he carried it 290+ w a 3 wood). The tour and US Open specifically do have firm conditions but that's only a small part of the distance those guys get. I play all over but live in MI and I get plenty of roll at my home course but have also played plenty of places where I can find my ball in my ball mark in the fairway.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    FREE AGENT CLUB HO NO MO!
    Ari Techner
    National Custom Works nationalcustomworks.com
    [email protected]
    IG: @nationalcustom
    Twitter: @WorksNational
    (still a huge club HO)
  • sdandreasdandrea Steve Advanced Members Posts: 2,316 ✭✭

    sdandrea wrote:


    Swimming records keep falling. Maybe we should thicken the water. 20 pound Speedos? Lengthen the yard/meter? 😊




    Nobody is complaining that the guys on the long drive tour are hitting it further. That's the only measure of their skill like speed the only measure of swimming skill. The unique thing about golf traditionally is it takes multiple skills to succeed.




    The bombers on tour still have to putt.
    Callaway Fusion
    Pinhawk SL 5w
    TM Burner Superfast 4h
    TM Burner XD 6-SW
    Scotty Fastback
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.