Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

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


Roadking2003

Recommended Posts

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

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

 

Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.

 

http://www.businessi...016-9?r=UK&IR=T

 

Nice.

 

Elite scoring averages

 

Owned, nearly exclusively, by long drivers.

 

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

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Less skill? No way.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Driver - Callaway Paradym
Woods - Callaway Paradym 3W
Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
Irons - Callaway Paradym 6-52*
Wedge - PXG Forged 56** 
Putter - Ping TYNE C
Ball - Titleist AVX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my thoughts:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I'll admit I don't have answers but can see the problem clearly

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

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

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

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

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Less skill? No way.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that is impressive,

 

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

 

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

 

-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that's exactly what the Titleist report said.

 

What else, could one conclude? :beruo:

 

#1 player in the world

 

Dustin Johnson

 

#2 driving distance in the world

 

Dustin Johnson

 

 

 

Most majors in the last 6 years

 

Rory Mcilroy

 

#1 driving distance in the world

 

Rory Mcilroy

 

Lowest round ever on tour (58)

 

Jim Furyk

 

#190 driving distance (last place)

 

17 PGA tour victories

 

(DJ 16 PGA tour victories)

(Rory 13 PGA tour victories)

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.

 

http://www.businessi...016-9?r=UK&IR=T

 

Nice.

 

Elite scoring averages

 

Owned, nearly exclusively, by long drivers.

 

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

 

:D

 

; )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.

 

 

 

 

True, very little evidence!

 

About 1/3 (driving distance) vs. 2/3 (short game)...

 

The graphic shows, that you need about 40 yards longer drives on average, to gain ONE single stroke!

 

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

 

 

Even the variance of the short game of Jordan Spieth is bigger, than one stroke... :read:

 

...again, the variance of Jordan Spieth short game makes a bigger difference, than a variance in driving distance of 40 yards! :polling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Because it's really boring to watch!

 

Don't agree. Each to their own!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

 

The TM stats you see on TV are only carry as the monitor can't actually see roll(or it hitting the ground in all actuality). The guys hit it a long way and they truly are able to fly it 300+ for the longer players. It's not just the condition of the fairways playing a part.

2024 Building In-progress

Qi10 Core Head 9* w/ AD-DI 6S  (I heart you AD DI and will never sway from you again)
Qi10 Tour 3W with shaft TBD
Callaway UW 17* with shaft TBD

Titleist TS2 19* Hybrid at 20* w/ PX Evenflow Blue 85 6.0

4-PW Srixon ZX7s w/ DG AMT White S300s
MG2 TW Grind 56/60 at 54/58
Spider Tour X3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.

 

 

 

 

True, very little evidence!

 

About 1/3 (driving distance) vs. 2/3 (short game)...

 

The graphic shows, that you need about 40 yards longer drives on average, to gain ONE single stroke!

 

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

 

 

Even the variance of the short game of Jordan Spieth is bigger, than one stroke... :read:

 

...again, the variance of Jordan Spieth short game makes a bigger difference, than a variance in driving distance of 40 yards! :polling:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a correlation there - I wouldn't say its an especially strong correlation.

 

But wait, are people saying they want no correlation? What do they want? They want a flat line? Distance should have no correlation to score? I don't think that's achievable. Shouldn't the ability to hit the ball a great distance be some kind of advantage?

 

How would limiting the ball or the fairway grass or anything else possibly remove the slight correlation between driving distance and scoring? All you will do is change the numbers on the x-axis of the graph.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my thoughts:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I'll admit I don't have answers but can see the problem clearly

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Taller people with a longer arc do get some free distance. But why do you think that there were so few tall players before the equipment change. Distance was still important then. Take a look at George Archer standing over the ball and you'll find your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Yeah, very little evidence that distance leads to success.

 

 

 

 

True, very little evidence!

 

About 1/3 (driving distance) vs. 2/3 (short game)...

 

The graphic shows, that you need about 40 yards longer drives on average, to gain ONE single stroke!

 

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

 

 

Even the variance of the short game of Jordan Spieth is bigger, than one stroke... :read:

 

...again, the variance of Jordan Spieth short game makes a bigger difference, than a variance in driving distance of 40 yards! :polling:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Can someone please refresh me on the 1/3 driving distance, 2/3 shot game thing? Is this a new equation someone came up with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Callaway Rogue ST Max 10.5°/Xcaliber SL 45 a flex,Callaway Rogue ST Max Heavenwood/Xcaliber FW a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 3h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 4h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour TC 5h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour+ 6-G/Xcaliber Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby Max Milled 54° & 58°/Xcaliber Wedge 85 r flex, Mizuno Bettinardi C06

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Less skill? No way.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

We've also seen that distance is just one aspect of the game, Furyk is the shortest hitter but he also has the only 58, proving in the end those with the best overall skill set find their way to the top.

Driver - Callaway Paradym
Woods - Callaway Paradym 3W
Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
Irons - Callaway Paradym 6-52*
Wedge - PXG Forged 56** 
Putter - Ping TYNE C
Ball - Titleist AVX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Taller people with a longer arc do get some free distance. But why do you think that there were so few tall players before the equipment change. Distance was still important then. Take a look at George Archer standing over the ball and you'll find your answer.

Is that what this is? An excuse to not work out and be body positive? :)

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

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

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a correlation there - I wouldn't say its an especially strong correlation.

 

But wait, are people saying they want no correlation? What do they want? They want a flat line? Distance should have no correlation to score? I don't think that's achievable. Shouldn't the ability to hit the ball a great distance be some kind of advantage?

 

How would limiting the ball or the fairway grass or anything else possibly remove the slight correlation between driving distance and scoring? All you will do is change the numbers on the x-axis of the graph.

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

 

 

Callaway Mavrik SubZero 9* Fujikura Motore Speeder VC7.2 Tour Spec X

Taylormade V-Steel 15* Aldila Tour Blue 75TX

Titleist 913 19* Diamana 82hy S
Srixon ZX4 MKII 4i Modus 105s

Srixon ZX5 MKII 5-P Modus 105s

TM MG 50/54 Project X 6.5 8i 

TM Tiger Grind 60* TI s400

TM Rossa Tourismo agsi+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Taller people with a longer arc do get some free distance. But why do you think that there were so few tall players before the equipment change. Distance was still important then. Take a look at George Archer standing over the ball and you'll find your answer.

Is that what this is? An excuse to not work out and be body positive? :)

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

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

 

So true, averages do not give the proper insight to distance. As I said, when Spieth hits it 315 yards, Rory or DJ put it out 345 yards. Averages factor in too many variables that can bury the actual performance potential of some of the longer hitters.

Driver - Callaway Paradym
Woods - Callaway Paradym 3W
Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
Irons - Callaway Paradym 6-52*
Wedge - PXG Forged 56** 
Putter - Ping TYNE C
Ball - Titleist AVX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a correlation there - I wouldn't say its an especially strong correlation.

 

But wait, are people saying they want no correlation? What do they want? They want a flat line? Distance should have no correlation to score? I don't think that's achievable. Shouldn't the ability to hit the ball a great distance be some kind of advantage?

 

How would limiting the ball or the fairway grass or anything else possibly remove the slight correlation between driving distance and scoring? All you will do is change the numbers on the x-axis of the graph.

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Damn...these long replies on a phone keyboard are tough on an old man's eyes & fingers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks as I have no idea about the lengths of some of the holes from years past, just an idea of overall length of the course.

Callaway Rogue ST Max 10.5°/Xcaliber SL 45 a flex,Callaway Rogue ST Max Heavenwood/Xcaliber FW a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 3h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 ST-H 4h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour TC 5h/Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby KE4 Tour+ 6-G/Xcaliber Rapid Taper a flex, Maltby Max Milled 54° & 58°/Xcaliber Wedge 85 r flex, Mizuno Bettinardi C06

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a correlation there - I wouldn't say its an especially strong correlation.

 

But wait, are people saying they want no correlation? What do they want? They want a flat line? Distance should have no correlation to score? I don't think that's achievable. Shouldn't the ability to hit the ball a great distance be some kind of advantage?

 

How would limiting the ball or the fairway grass or anything else possibly remove the slight correlation between driving distance and scoring? All you will do is change the numbers on the x-axis of the graph.

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Callaway Mavrik SubZero 9* Fujikura Motore Speeder VC7.2 Tour Spec X

Taylormade V-Steel 15* Aldila Tour Blue 75TX

Titleist 913 19* Diamana 82hy S
Srixon ZX4 MKII 4i Modus 105s

Srixon ZX5 MKII 5-P Modus 105s

TM MG 50/54 Project X 6.5 8i 

TM Tiger Grind 60* TI s400

TM Rossa Tourismo agsi+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a correlation there - I wouldn't say its an especially strong correlation.

 

But wait, are people saying they want no correlation? What do they want? They want a flat line? Distance should have no correlation to score? I don't think that's achievable. Shouldn't the ability to hit the ball a great distance be some kind of advantage?

 

How would limiting the ball or the fairway grass or anything else possibly remove the slight correlation between driving distance and scoring? All you will do is change the numbers on the x-axis of the graph.

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a correlation there - I wouldn't say its an especially strong correlation.

 

But wait, are people saying they want no correlation? What do they want? They want a flat line? Distance should have no correlation to score? I don't think that's achievable. Shouldn't the ability to hit the ball a great distance be some kind of advantage?

 

How would limiting the ball or the fairway grass or anything else possibly remove the slight correlation between driving distance and scoring? All you will do is change the numbers on the x-axis of the graph.

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

I was surprised at some of the names throwing up -23 and such

Callaway Mavrik SubZero 9* Fujikura Motore Speeder VC7.2 Tour Spec X

Taylormade V-Steel 15* Aldila Tour Blue 75TX

Titleist 913 19* Diamana 82hy S
Srixon ZX4 MKII 4i Modus 105s

Srixon ZX5 MKII 5-P Modus 105s

TM MG 50/54 Project X 6.5 8i 

TM Tiger Grind 60* TI s400

TM Rossa Tourismo agsi+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...