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

[John L.]

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

 

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

 

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

 

About 1/2 the guys I play with are 60 and older. There are a few of the 70+ guys that can still nail it.

[Man_O_War]

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

 

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

 

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

[BIG STU]

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

 

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

 

At this point, I'd normally write something sarcastic and disparaging, but I don't want to undermine my own argument. Seriously, you're going to hurt millions of golfers catering to a couple hundred tour players.

I have stated this before-- The Ball companies will loose money on the new "limited" ball for the general masses. I dare say 90% of the people playing the game now play for fun and do not play stipulated rounds even at league level. Seniors (I am one BTW) are not going to buy a new high priced ball that goes less distance. there are too many balls out here of all brands that are conforming to today's standards. I am retired from stipulated comp and play mostly for fun and could care less what the USGA R&A or the PGA want to do. All 3 of them can pound sand as far as I am concerned

[Uhit]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You need more skill to drive it fast, long and accurate, than to drive it fast, short and accurate - simple as that!

[Roadking2003]

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

 

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

 

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

[bladehunter]

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

[gvogel]

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

 

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

You were playing steel shafted wood and balata. Likely on a course that by modern agronomical standards was a goat track. You might as well compare the car you drive today to the car you drove in that era.

 

It hosted a Canadian Open.

[vernon]

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

 

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

And with nothing more than a 9 iron or else something is "tricked up".

[Bye]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[Roadking2003]

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

 

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

 

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

[Roadking2003]

Courses do not HAVE TO change to accommodate the longer hitters. They CHOOSE TO. All to keep another changing game from changing. Funny how some want the equipment changed but are perfectly fine with the improved agronomy we play the game on. Rather than increase spin in the construction of the ball the pros would actually have a more difficult time imo from longer fairways. Reading the lie would be more of an art as fliers would be an occasional result.

 

The easiest way to reduce driving distances is to mow fairways like they did in 1990 and keep them well watered. That would reduce drives by 10 - 20 yards.

[EKELLY]

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

 

The best I can tell is that Jack Nicklaus et. al. wants everybody to believe that he was the best golfer ever, and can't accept that any one of the guys in current Top 10 would handily beat in-his-prime Jack. Athletes get better over time. Games evolve. Get over it.

The MAIN difference is the guys that know how to CLOSE. That's why Tiger is the only stud we'll see in our lifetime......No Watson's, Trevino's, Faldo's, Phil's, on the horizon. Maybe Spieth, and Rory may not be done yet..... There is a reason why the Rose's, Johnson's, Day's, will only win 1-2 majors........They aren't Closers!......

[Golfrnut]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Depends on what "error" we are talking about. Are we talking ball start direction or face to path differences in the swing?

[cxx]

Titleist has everything to lose. They are the dominant golf ball maker and their marketing is about how many tour players use their ball. A spec ball strips any pretense of superior technology away. If I were any other ball manufacturer, I'd be all for it. Shake it all up and lets see what happens.

 

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

 

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

[raynorfan1]

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

 

What problem are you solving for?

 

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

[Roadking2003]

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

 

The top 10 owgr,

 

DJ 315

JS 295

JT 309

Rahm 305

HM 303

Rose 301

Rickie 300

Brooks 311

Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

Rory 317

 

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

 

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

 

Now show me that correlation again.

[Roadking2003]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Nobody denies those numbers. But it hasn't translated into lower scoring. Scoring has been flat for the last 18 years.

[coops]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Or reduce the current Tour fairway stimp readings, which don't match any course I play on except that time in a heatwave in the Scottish Borders where the fairways were concrete and the rough was thigh high hay.

[bladehunter]

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

 

The top 10 owgr,

 

DJ 315

JS 295

JT 309

Rahm 305

HM 303

Rose 301

Rickie 300

Brooks 311

Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

Rory 317

 

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

 

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

 

Now show me that correlation again.

 

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

[TsarBomba]

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

 

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

 

Stop making it a requirement to hit it so far

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[Roadking2003]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Roll back the fairways, not the ball.

[bladehunter]

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

 

What problem are you solving for?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And on top of that approach shots. We see less and less flighted , worked in shots to a tight pin. It's all high straight at it. It's a pipe dream I know as it won't happen. But if every tour player had to play a less forgiving iron ( one without perimeter weighting ) and a ball that spun more viewing in my opinion would be x100 more fun to watch. Cream would rise as usual. And we would see a lot more interesting pro tracer shots. Anyone think that isn't true ? If so I'd love to hear how straight is more fun to watch. Truth is it wont happen because of $. Can't sell less forgiveness to the masses. So the game is sold off bit by bit.

[Roadking2003]

 

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

 

15 of the top 30 on the money list are 50th or worse in driving distance and six of them are very short hitters ranking over 100th in driving distance.

[tannyhoban]

My admiration for Niclaus has completely devolved. He has 17 designs that will be played on tours worldwide. Seems he's butt hurt the kids play them better.

 

Bash Titleist for pointing out the obvious if you will, but don't discount Jack's agenda.

[Roadking2003]

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

 

What problem are you solving for?

 

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

 

Even though I don't think there is a problem to solve, I vote for rolling back the fairways.

[bladehunter]

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

 

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

 

Stop making it a requirement to hit it so far

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Don't think that's true. We haven't had a golf ball yet come out that's at the limit. At some point one will be released that is advertised as " pushing the limit " . Hasn't happened yet. But it will.

[Roadking2003]

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

 

The top 10 owgr,

 

DJ 315

JS 295

JT 309

Rahm 305

HM 303

Rose 301

Rickie 300

Brooks 311

Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

Rory 317

 

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

 

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

 

Now show me that correlation again.

 

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

 

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

[Hawkeye77]

It is NOT a study.

 

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

 

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

 

And again, I like my ProV1s and Chrome Softs very much, thank you and golf balls for the average golfer aren't going to get dialed back, and likely not for the pros either (and if they did for pros, who cares).

[bladehunter]

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

 

The top 10 owgr,

 

DJ 315

JS 295

JT 309

Rahm 305

HM 303

Rose 301

Rickie 300

Brooks 311

Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

Rory 317

 

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

 

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

 

Now show me that correlation again.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[bscinstnct]

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

 

The top 10 owgr,

 

DJ 315

JS 295

JT 309

Rahm 305

HM 303

Rose 301

Rickie 300

Brooks 311

Stenson 292 (think he uses 3w alot]

Rory 317

 

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

 

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

 

Now show me that correlation again.

 

Look at the web.com tour

 

30 guys *average* 310 or more

 

87 guys average 300 or more

 

Distance off the tee correlates directly with success in golf.

 

Proof...

 

2 best golfers of all time

 

Jack

 

Tiger