Jump to content

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


Roadking2003

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Here you go.

 

Your graph shows minor or no correlation. Just like the Titleist report stated.

 

21 guys averaged over 305.

 

5 averaged under 50k/event

6 averaged 50-100k/event

4 averaged 100-150k/event

2 averaged 150-200k

4 averaged 200-450k

 

Of the bottom 21 in average distance

 

18 averaged under 50k/event

1 averaged over 100k

0 averaged 150k or more.

 

In fairness, usually the independent variable (driving distance) goes on the x-axis (horizontal). I didn't realize Sull and I created the same chart with flipped axes.

 

If you can't tell there's a trend when driving distance is on the horizontal axis, it may be time for cataract surgery.

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.

 

Those, who became most often club masters in our club (7000 yards course), are also not the longest hitters, but have a reliable short game...

 

-

 

Btw.

 

By looking at the graphics again...

 

...If you imagine, that Jordan Spieth would lose his exceptional short game abilities (and the correlated two stroke gain over the field),

he would have to drive it about 80 yards farther than today (following the trend of the grafics), to compensate this loss with driving distance (>370 yards would be necessary)!

 

Which shows once more, that success is stronger correlated to the short game, than to driving distance.

 

Drive for show, putt for dough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

I agree with most of you post but do you condone someone playing non-conforming drivers and balls in money games or club tournaments with you?

I do not play club tournaments mainly because they do not have them and I do not have AM status. Now as far as gambling it is all in how the game is made. We make the game we agree to the game and that is that. Hell I have played in games where grease is legal on the club face. Hey if I do not like the game then I aint gotta play it. Ok if I am back playing mini tours and the rules say a stipulated ball as in limited distance then rules are rules and if everyone plays by the rules then all is fair. The main thing I have been talking about is the general Joe recreational or weekend golfer. Hey if a mini tour event says they are using a limited distance ball and I do not like it well no one is holding a gun to my head making me play. But out right cheating in a event or a money match I do NOT condone it

Driver--- Callaway Big Bertha Alpha--- Speeder 565 R flex

5W  --- TM V Steel Fubuki 60r

7W --- TM V Steel UST Pro Force 65 R flex

9W--- TM V Steel Stock V Steel R flex shaft

Irons 5 thru PW TM TP CB Steel Fiber 95 R F

SW Callaway PM Grind 56* Modified Grind KBS Tour Wedge

LW Vokey SM5 L Grind 58* 04 bounce Stock Vokey Shaft

Putter Macgregor Bobby Grace Mark 4 V-Foil Broomstick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other factor that has not been mentioned in all of this (pardon me if someone mentioned and I did not see) is shaft technology. Look how much shafts have advanced in the last 20 years. All of it has evolved shafts heads and balls. Want a dose of reality especially if you are a senior like me. I still play persimmon and blades some. With a modern ball I only hit a persimmon driver about 220 or so at sea level. Now honestly I hit my 915 D-2 about 250 255 at sea level. See it is just not the balls it is all of the equipment

Driver--- Callaway Big Bertha Alpha--- Speeder 565 R flex

5W  --- TM V Steel Fubuki 60r

7W --- TM V Steel UST Pro Force 65 R flex

9W--- TM V Steel Stock V Steel R flex shaft

Irons 5 thru PW TM TP CB Steel Fiber 95 R F

SW Callaway PM Grind 56* Modified Grind KBS Tour Wedge

LW Vokey SM5 L Grind 58* 04 bounce Stock Vokey Shaft

Putter Macgregor Bobby Grace Mark 4 V-Foil Broomstick

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.

 

Those, who became most often club masters in our club (7000 yards course), are also not the longest hitters, but have a reliable short game...

 

-

 

Btw.

 

By looking at the graphics again...

 

...If you imagine, that Jordan Spieth would lose his exceptional short game abilities (and the correlated two stroke gain over the field),

he would have to drive it about 80 yards farther than today (following the trend of the grafics), to compensate this loss with driving distance (>370 yards would be necessary)!

 

Which shows once more, that success is stronger correlated to the short game, than to driving distance.

 

Drive for show, putt for dough!

 

tumblr_m5f4krm42a1qcb58yo2_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

Perhaps if you're part of the golfing elite.

 

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

 

And I am in the MAJORITY of the golfing public

 

 

Of course the game isn't easy. It was implied that the "easy" as in relative terms.

 

And as for the " majority " statement. what does that have to do with any thing. ? Funny fact. More spin would equal more distance for a lot of the " majority " out there. They just don't know it.

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

See 2013 US Open at Merion CC. Justin Rose +1 winning score ,course was shade under 7,000 yards.

 

Grow rough, narrow fairways and firm up greens......

 

Well, this is a nice thought, but it's really not realistic. Oh sure, you can get away with this type of setup once a year at the U.S. Open, and perhaps a couple more occasions, but there is no way the players would tolerate it on a weekly basis, nor should they have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See 2013 US Open at Merion CC. Justin Rose +1 winning score ,course was shade under 7,000 yards.

 

Grow rough, narrow fairways and firm up greens......

 

Well, this is a nice thought, but it's really not realistic. Oh sure, you can get away with this type of setup once a year at the U.S. Open, and perhaps a couple more occasions, but there is no way the players would tolerate it on a weekly basis, nor should they have to.

I have never understood the fascination some have with the pros shooting even par as a target. These guys are the best in the world- +5 to +9 or so cap equivalents-and some want to see them suffer and shoot the same scores they see every weekend at their club.

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

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.

 

Lots of interesting numbers have been posted. So let's be clear. We are not saying there is NO correlation between distance and success. All you have to do is look at the first tee every Saturday at your local course to see that the 75 year old man driving it 175 yards will probably get beat by the 22 YO college kid driving it 290 yards.

 

But the issues are

 

1. "are long hitters dominating the PGA Tour" ? and

 

2. "Should ball distance be rolled back"?

 

The answer to #1 is clearly NO since at least half of the top 30 money winners are not long hitters. Spieth proves that you don't have to be long to be #1 in the world. Three of the past seven #1 OWGR players are medium to short hitters.

 

The answer to #2 is also NO since PGA Tour scoring is virtually flat over the past 18 years.

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.

 

Lots of interesting numbers have been posted. So let's be clear. We are not saying there is NO correlation between distance and success. All you have to do is look at the first tee every Saturday at your local course to see that the 75 year old man driving it 175 yards will probably get beat by the 22 YO college kid driving it 290 yards.

 

But the issues are

 

1. "are long hitters dominating the PGA Tour" ? and

 

2. "Should ball distance be rolled back"?

 

The answer to #1 is clearly NO since at least half of the top 30 money winners are not long hitters. Spieth proves that you don't have to be long to be #1 in the world. Three of the past seven #1 OWGR players are medium to short hitters.

 

The answer to #2 is also NO since PGA Tour scoring is virtually flat over the past 18 years.

 

I appreciate the nice tone. I enjoy talking about this stuff! You and I agree on #2. I think the game is just evolving, and I enjoy the fact that I am using the same equipment as the pros. I know I stink compared to them. Me playing a "normal" ball and them playing a rolled back ball would take the fun out of it. Like I needed "help." I do, but I enjoy the delusion a bit :)

 

My only critiques of your work is that I'd look at Earnings Per Event rather than just earnings. I'd also look at the reasons why scoring is flat on the PGA tour. Longer courses.

 

I re-did the Top 30 to show earnings per event. The Top 12 are all above-average in distance. 80% of the top 30 are above-average in distance. This is further highlighted in my scatter plot, where I highlight the Top 30. A lot of guys to the right of the average. If you're earning big money, you're longer than average.

 

Then I would take another look at the Titleist charts. How they can say courses haven't changed length over the years or major-winning scores haven't gone down is beyond me. There are clear (likely statistically-significant) trends there. Scores trend down, lengths trend up.

 

Then let's look at courses on the PGA Tour. They've gotten longer over the years, no doubt. The last chart shows average course grows roughly proportionate to tee shot distance.

 

Again, I don't want to roll back the ball. I like the natural evolution of the game, and I think this issue is being blown out of proportion. I just don't like the way Titleist has presented it.

 

I trust you'll look at this with an open mind. Thanks for the good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this “idea”. They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

I'm honestly not here to change minds. I'm here to challenge myself to make good analysis and create pretty charts :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

That is simplistic, and reflects your idea that there is some sort of a conspiracy out to "get" modern players. Of course Dustin Johnson should have a shorter second shot on 13 at Augusta National. He is a larger, more talented player. There is no disputing the fact that Dustin Johnson brings more swing speed and talent to the situation than the former golfers that you mention.

 

The argument is that his ball and his bat should not be more advanced, as well.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

That is simplistic, and reflects your idea that there is some sort of a conspiracy out to "get" modern players. Of course Dustin Johnson should have a shorter second shot on 13 at Augusta National. He is a larger, more talented player. There is no disputing the fact that Dustin Johnson brings more swing speed and talent to the situation than the former golfers that you mention.

 

The argument is that his ball and his bat should not be more advanced, as well.

 

More advanced than Jack’s? Or Tiger’s? Or Bobby’s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

That is simplistic, and reflects your idea that there is some sort of a conspiracy out to "get" modern players. Of course Dustin Johnson should have a shorter second shot on 13 at Augusta National. He is a larger, more talented player. There is no disputing the fact that Dustin Johnson brings more swing speed and talent to the situation than the former golfers that you mention.

 

The argument is that his ball and his bat should not be more advanced, as well.

 

More advanced than Jack's? Or Tiger's? Or Bobby's?

 

Yes, that is the subject of the discussion.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

I'm honestly not here to change minds. I'm here to challenge myself to make good analysis and create pretty charts :)

 

As they say, a man’s got to know his limitations...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this “idea”. They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

Correct. I love you guys on the stats train doing solid work. But this isn’t about stats. This is the anchored putter thing all over again - nobody can conclusively demonstrate that it’s more effective, but the old men in blue jackets are offended by how it “looks”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking: Leading golf ball company does not want further regulation on golf balls. More at 11.

 

Why would they care? Titleist will make a fortune either way. If the USGA rolls back ball distance everyone will be buying new balls.

Because if there is a roll back Titleists perceived superiority over the competition is diminished.

M2, maybe
915 FD
913 HD
712u 3
714 AP2 4-p
SM5 53, 59
Circa62

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See 2013 US Open at Merion CC. Justin Rose +1 winning score ,course was shade under 7,000 yards.

 

Grow rough, narrow fairways and firm up greens......

 

Well, this is a nice thought, but it's really not realistic. Oh sure, you can get away with this type of setup once a year at the U.S. Open, and perhaps a couple more occasions, but there is no way the players would tolerate it on a weekly basis, nor should they have to.

I have never understood the fascination some have with the pros shooting even par as a target. These guys are the best in the world- +5 to +9 or so cap equivalents-and some want to see them suffer and shoot the same scores they see every weekend at their club.

 

I’m going to write a broader post on this topic, but the notion of “Par” has changed dramatically over time, and this leads to disparate attitudes.

 

A hundred years ago “bogey” was the number printed on the score card (get it, the “bogey” is the score you’re chasing); Par was subsequently introduced as the ideal score that an expert golfer could achieve under perfect conditions. If we stay consistent with that definition of Par, it makes sense to try to “defend” it. Thus you see (particularly in US Opens) reachable “Par 5” holes re-defined as Par 4’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is such an easy solution to this, go on a trackman hit a proV1 and a balata with the same driver, see where the distance gains come from. Titleist releases a 25 page report to protect what a 3 minute youtube video could show, I mean I don't blame them but come on

M2, maybe
915 FD
913 HD
712u 3
714 AP2 4-p
SM5 53, 59
Circa62

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

Correct. I love you guys on the stats train doing solid work. But this isn't about stats. This is the anchored putter thing all over again - nobody can conclusively demonstrate that it's more effective, but the old men in blue jackets are offended by how it "looks".

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's clearly been demonstrated that hitting the balls further is a more effective way to play golf. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

Agree there was no demonstrated advantage to anchored putters. At the top level of sport, games evolve. People figure them out. Strategies change. Don't panic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

Correct. I love you guys on the stats train doing solid work. But this isn't about stats. This is the anchored putter thing all over again - nobody can conclusively demonstrate that it's more effective, but the old men in blue jackets are offended by how it "looks".

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's clearly been demonstrated that hitting the balls further is a more effective way to play golf. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

Agree there was no demonstrated advantage to anchored putters. At the top level of sport, games evolve. People figure them out. Strategies change. Don't panic.

 

It’s always been the case that long hitters are at an advantage - nobody is bothered by that truism.

 

They don’t like the optics of guys hitting nine irons from the same spot where Ben Hogan hit a legendary one iron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

Correct. I love you guys on the stats train doing solid work. But this isn't about stats. This is the anchored putter thing all over again - nobody can conclusively demonstrate that it's more effective, but the old men in blue jackets are offended by how it "looks".

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's clearly been demonstrated that hitting the balls further is a more effective way to play golf. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

Agree there was no demonstrated advantage to anchored putters. At the top level of sport, games evolve. People figure them out. Strategies change. Don't panic.

 

It's always been the case that long hitters are at an advantage - nobody is bothered by that truism.

 

They don't like the optics of guys hitting nine irons from the same spot where Ben Hogan hit a legendary one iron.

 

Well, they'll die eventually.

 

To me, the answer (what was the question, again?) is just keep equipment rules as they are. Let's see how long it takes to optimize equipment for the current rules (we're pretty close, I'd think).

 

From there, just let evolution take over and see what humans can do. Avg. PGA Tour SS is up 4mph in the past decade.

 

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but is it our fault today that no one was smart enough back then to invent a hybrid? I mean, he hit a great shot, no doubt. But we don't have to do that in 2017. The game is golf, not 1-iron hitting contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the answer (what was the question, again?) is just keep equipment rules as they are. Let's see how long it takes to optimize equipment for the current rules (we're pretty close, I'd think).

 

I think this is tough ground to defend. Where both the club and the ball are already regulated to “roll back” distance, you’re stuck arguing that 317 yards is the “right” number. And I don’t know how you arbitrate what the right number is.

 

I’d rather roll back the rules and let the engineers loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are NO numbers or statistics you can point out that will change the attitude behind this "idea". They want Dustin Johnson to hit the same club into #13 at Augusta, from the same spot in the fairway as Jack did in 1975. Or Tiger in 1998. Or Bobby Jones in 1935. Or something.

 

That is simplistic, and reflects your idea that there is some sort of a conspiracy out to "get" modern players. Of course Dustin Johnson should have a shorter second shot on 13 at Augusta National. He is a larger, more talented player. There is no disputing the fact that Dustin Johnson brings more swing speed and talent to the situation than the former golfers that you mention.

 

The argument is that his ball and his bat should not be more advanced, as well.

 

More advanced than Jack's? Or Tiger's? Or Bobby's?

 

Yes, that is the subject of the discussion.

 

Which era are you inclined to take it back to? Those in favor all seem to want to take it back to one they lived through (optimally of course). Not Bobby days. Not old Tom Morris days. Not a coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the answer (what was the question, again?) is just keep equipment rules as they are. Let's see how long it takes to optimize equipment for the current rules (we're pretty close, I'd think).

 

I think this is tough ground to defend. Where both the club and the ball are already regulated to "roll back" distance, you're stuck arguing that 317 yards is the "right" number. And I don't know how you arbitrate what the right number is.

 

I'd rather roll back the rules and let the engineers loose.

 

I don't want to have to be arguing about a number. I'd rather say, "ok, these are the rules for equipment" and then let humans figure out how well they can use it. I don't think you have to pick a number as a target. Besides, human evolution will always make the ball go farther.

 

It's maybe a bit of semantics, but it would make more sense to me to figure out what what makes a golf club a golf club or a golf ball a golf ball, and solidify those rules. We've already come a long way in establishing those parameters, now we're arguing about the limits of those parameters (ie, max COR).

 

I don't mean to be smart, but rules are what help us figure out what is a golf club and what is a baseball bat. Rules on what a golf club and balls are allowed to be are different from things like anchoring or putting while straddling the line of a putt, which tell us how we can use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the answer (what was the question, again?) is just keep equipment rules as they are. Let's see how long it takes to optimize equipment for the current rules (we're pretty close, I'd think).

 

I think this is tough ground to defend. Where both the club and the ball are already regulated to “roll back” distance, you’re stuck arguing that 317 yards is the “right” number. And I don’t know how you arbitrate what the right number is.

 

I’d rather roll back the rules and let the engineers loose.

 

Engineers win. Now that would be optimizing to new sets of parameters/limits. Increased work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the answer (what was the question, again?) is just keep equipment rules as they are. Let's see how long it takes to optimize equipment for the current rules (we're pretty close, I'd think).

 

I think this is tough ground to defend. Where both the club and the ball are already regulated to "roll back" distance, you're stuck arguing that 317 yards is the "right" number. And I don't know how you arbitrate what the right number is.

 

I'd rather roll back the rules and let the engineers loose.

 

I don't want to have to be arguing about a number. I'd rather say, "ok, these are the rules for equipment" and then let humans figure out how well they can use it. I don't think you have to pick a number as a target. Besides, human evolution will always make the ball go farther.

 

It's maybe a bit of semantics, but it would make more sense to me to figure out what what makes a golf club a golf club or a golf ball a golf ball, and solidify those rules. We've already come a long way in establishing those parameters, now we're arguing about the limits of those parameters (ie, max COR).

 

I don't mean to be smart, but rules are what help us figure out what is a golf club and what is a baseball bat. Rules on what a golf club and balls are allowed to be are different from things like anchoring or putting while straddling the line of a putt, which tell us how we can use them.

 

I think we’re in the same place, except that you might. It realize that the USGA currently has a distance limit of 317 yards (under very specific test conditions). I think the rules should define size and weight, but otherwise let designers go nuts (and I could accept an argument that even size and weight should be for the player to determine).

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 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...
       
       
       
       
      • 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
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      • 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
    • 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put and questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #1
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Garrick Higgo - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Billy Horschel - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Justin Lower - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Lanto Griffin - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bud Cauley - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Corbin Burnes (2021 NL Cy Young) - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Charley Hoffman - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Nico Echavarria - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Victor Perez - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sami Valimaki - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ryo Hisatsune - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Jake Knapp's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      New Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Tyler Duncan's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sunjae Im's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ping's Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Vincent Whaley's custom Cameron - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Odyssey Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Super Stroke custom grips - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Zac Blair's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bettinardi Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      • 12 replies

×
×
  • Create New...