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

191012141519

Comments

  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 27,169 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    bscinstnct wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.



    Top 5 highlighted by name, Top 30 highlighted in dark blue.



    My thoughts? It's easier to score well if you're long. Duh. Someone mentioned the distance "elite."



    There are 43 guys averaging over 300 yards. 36 of 43 have positive total strokes gained. That means 84% of players averaging 300 yards are above-average in scoring.




    This distance effect compounds as well.



    Consider that every 10 yards of distance off the tee realizes less potential strokes to hole out. Every 20 yards might mean .10-.15 less shots to hole out.



    Now, rack that up over the course of 4 rounds and a big hitter is starting with a 2,3 even 4 stroke advantage automatically.



    Then add that guys who hit it farther don't just hit it farther off the tee. They have more swing speed and would often be more effective at a 180 yard approach than a shorter hitter since they are hitting a more lofted club. Only its the shorter hitter hitting from 180 and the longer hitter hitting from 150-160. It's almost unfair.



    Also, on long par 4s, it's only the longer player who get to dial short irons and wedges.



    Now, alllllll the way back to the titleist piece. I agree that there are a number of factors that contribute to big hitters have the advantage, it's not just the ball.




    What about marathon runners with longer legs than average?



    Let them run 4 miles more, because of that?



    Would this be fair?



    Or "one size fits all" shoes for marathon runners,

    because some might have an advantage with a certain kind of shoes?



    -



    It is in the nature of sports, that some have an advantage over others.

    Be it the size, weight, flexibility, speed, etc.



    Don´t play, or watch, competitions, if you think, that everything is unfair, that is not performed by (the same) robots.



    -



    I enjoy watching people who hit it far and / or very precise, and don´t spend a second in thinking,



    that it may be easier for them to do (than it is for > put in name here <) it, because of this, or because of that.






    You took that way too literally ; )
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #333
    rawdog wrote:


    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.




    Very interesting indeed. The top five in SG total are spread all across the top tier and pretty evenly spaced horizontally.



    My observations;



    1. You have to be above average in distance to be top tier (although it would be interesting to see Luke Donald's stats when he was #1 and one of the shortest drivers on tour).



    2. If you are above average in distance, there is little to be gained by increasing your distance. If you look only at the right half of your graph, the Least Squares Regression Line would be flat or almost flat indicating that at some point more distance doesn't improve your game.



    4. If your distance is less than average, you have a lot to gain by increasing your distance. A Least Squares Regression Line would certainly be tilted up if applied only to the left half of the graph.




    Luke Donald, you say? Look what peaked for him right around the time his OWGR peaked. He had an outlier year in both approaches and tee shots strokes gained. He was a little longer, and considerably more accurate that previous years. First time he ever GAINED strokes off the tee.



    His short game and putting has always been consistently good, but look what happened when his driver woke up for a couple years. It put him over the top.



    As his accuracy falls over the years, his distance just can't keep him competitive... a fall to 81 in OWGR. To be competitive on tour, Luke needs to be crazy accurate off the tee.







    Is there a little mistake in the numbers for 2014 (Distance)?



    However, it is interesting to see, how important accuracy is, if he hits it far (2011 + 2012 vs 2016)...



    ...and how much difference it seems to make, to have 2% more accuracy, or two more yards distance.



    Accuracy seems to be more important in this case (2011+ 2012 vs 2008 vs 2016).
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #334
    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.




    Very interesting indeed. The top five in SG total are spread all across the top tier and pretty evenly spaced horizontally.



    My observations;



    1. You have to be above average in distance to be top tier (although it would be interesting to see Luke Donald's stats when he was #1 and one of the shortest drivers on tour).



    2. If you are above average in distance, there is little to be gained by increasing your distance. If you look only at the right half of your graph, the Least Squares Regression Line would be flat or almost flat indicating that at some point more distance doesn't improve your game.



    4. If your distance is less than average, you have a lot to gain by increasing your distance. A Least Squares Regression Line would certainly be tilted up if applied only to the left half of the graph.




    Luke Donald, you say? Look what peaked for him right around the time his OWGR peaked. He had an outlier year in both approaches and tee shots strokes gained. He was a little longer, and considerably more accurate that previous years. First time he ever GAINED strokes off the tee.



    His short game and putting has always been consistently good, but look what happened when his driver woke up for a couple years. It put him over the top.



    As his accuracy falls over the years, his distance just can't keep him competitive... a fall to 81 in OWGR. To be competitive on tour, Luke needs to be crazy accurate off the tee.




    Is there a little mistake in the numbers for 2014 (Distance)?



    However, it is interesting to see, how important accuracy is, if he hits it far (2011 vs. 2016)...



    ...and how much difference it seems to make, to have 2% more accuracy, or two more yards distance.



    Accuracy seems to be more important in this case (2011+2012 vs 2008 vs 2016).




    Nah, he was juicing in 2014 image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Yes, I fat-fingered.



    It's interesting, though, to read beyond the FIRs.



    Luke hit 7.6% fewer fairways in 2016 than 2011. That's about 1.1 fairways per round.



    Using Broadie's work, the difference between rough and fairway (expressed as expected shots) is about a quarter stroke. But Luke lost .669 strokes off the tee between 2011 and 2016. What gives?



    Well, there's a stat called "Missed Fairway Percentage - Other" that is defined as a tee shot that lands in a location other than fairway or rough. Ie, OB or sand, etc.



    In 2011, Luke hit a shot like that 1.95% of the time, or .273 per round (assume 14 drives). In 2016, this number went up to 6.27% of the time, or 1.13 per round!



    So not only did he hit fewer fairways, but his bad shots were even worse! If you have 1.13-0.273 = 0.86 more of these types of shots per round, no doubt you're going to struggle off the tee.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,953 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.




    Very interesting indeed. The top five in SG total are spread all across the top tier and pretty evenly spaced horizontally.



    My observations;



    1. You have to be above average in distance to be top tier (although it would be interesting to see Luke Donald's stats when he was #1 and one of the shortest drivers on tour).



    2. If you are above average in distance, there is little to be gained by increasing your distance. If you look only at the right half of your graph, the Least Squares Regression Line would be flat or almost flat indicating that at some point more distance doesn't improve your game.



    4. If your distance is less than average, you have a lot to gain by increasing your distance. A Least Squares Regression Line would certainly be tilted up if applied only to the left half of the graph.




    Luke Donald, you say? Look what peaked for him right around the time his OWGR peaked. He had an outlier year in both approaches and tee shots strokes gained. He was a little longer, and considerably more accurate that previous years. First time he ever GAINED strokes off the tee.



    His short game and putting has always been consistently good, but look what happened when his driver woke up for a couple years. It put him over the top.



    As his accuracy falls over the years, his distance just can't keep him competitive... a fall to 81 in OWGR. To be competitive on tour, Luke needs to be crazy accurate off the tee.




    His iron play must have been spectacular in 2011 to get more than a full stroke gained.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,953 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    That's why I like the concept of strokes gained and expected strokes. For example, if you track your stats (or use other stats like PGA Tour or Broadie's), you can look at it like this:



    I missed a 10 footer and tapped in. That's two strokes. From that distance, I was expected to take 1.6 strokes (using collected data), but I made 2. So I really only lost .4 strokes.



    Or driving. Data can tell us, ok, I'm 440 yards out on the tee box of a Par 4. Average scoring from that distance is 4.1 strokes. I put one in the rough and am 180 out. I'm expected to take 3.3 strokes from there. I took a full stroke, but made myself only .8 strokes better off. So I lost .2 strokes because of that tee shot.



    Aggregate enough data and you can see where you're gaining and losing.



    I think a lot of people think their putter is costing them, but they have the expectation that if they miss, they've "lost a stroke." You haven't, because you can't expect to make them all.




    And if you hit it OB or lose a ball you lose a full two strokes. You would have to miss five ten foot putts to lose that much.



    BTW, are your numbers above based on real data or just made up examples?
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭

    rawdog wrote:


    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.




    Very interesting indeed. The top five in SG total are spread all across the top tier and pretty evenly spaced horizontally.



    My observations;



    1. You have to be above average in distance to be top tier (although it would be interesting to see Luke Donald's stats when he was #1 and one of the shortest drivers on tour).



    2. If you are above average in distance, there is little to be gained by increasing your distance. If you look only at the right half of your graph, the Least Squares Regression Line would be flat or almost flat indicating that at some point more distance doesn't improve your game.



    4. If your distance is less than average, you have a lot to gain by increasing your distance. A Least Squares Regression Line would certainly be tilted up if applied only to the left half of the graph.




    Luke Donald, you say? Look what peaked for him right around the time his OWGR peaked. He had an outlier year in both approaches and tee shots strokes gained. He was a little longer, and considerably more accurate that previous years. First time he ever GAINED strokes off the tee.



    His short game and putting has always been consistently good, but look what happened when his driver woke up for a couple years. It put him over the top.



    As his accuracy falls over the years, his distance just can't keep him competitive... a fall to 81 in OWGR. To be competitive on tour, Luke needs to be crazy accurate off the tee.




    His iron play must have been spectacular in 2011 to get more than a full stroke gained.




    Hey, give me a breather and go look up his proximity to the hole in 2011 versus other years! LOL.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #338

    rawdog wrote:


    That's why I like the concept of strokes gained and expected strokes. For example, if you track your stats (or use other stats like PGA Tour or Broadie's), you can look at it like this:



    I missed a 10 footer and tapped in. That's two strokes. From that distance, I was expected to take 1.6 strokes (using collected data), but I made 2. So I really only lost .4 strokes.



    Or driving. Data can tell us, ok, I'm 440 yards out on the tee box of a Par 4. Average scoring from that distance is 4.1 strokes. I put one in the rough and am 180 out. I'm expected to take 3.3 strokes from there. I took a full stroke, but made myself only .8 strokes better off. So I lost .2 strokes because of that tee shot.



    Aggregate enough data and you can see where you're gaining and losing.



    I think a lot of people think their putter is costing them, but they have the expectation that if they miss, they've "lost a stroke." You haven't, because you can't expect to make them all.




    And if you hit it OB or lose a ball you lose a full two strokes. You would have to miss five ten foot putts to lose that much.



    BTW, are your numbers above based on real data or just made up examples?




    The putting data is from a paper by Mark Broadie in 2011. I found it through a google image search. Someone posted it in another forum. It probably hasn't changed much.



    The key to realize here is that expected putts drops exponentially rather than linearly. So as your proximity to the hole improves linearly, your putting improves exponentially.



    The tee data is directly from "Every Shot Counts." But the thing is, you can use whatever you want. Benchmark against a tour pro, a 90 shooter, yourself, whatever.



    http://www.columbia....ed_20110113.pdf

    https://thesandtrap....gained-putting/
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • OrangeGravyOrangeGravy WAMembers Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    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?




    Changing venues in other sports is not exactly the same. They don't make a football 110 yards instead of 100. They don't start increasing the dimensions of a baseball field every few years to catch up with the players. I'm not arguing for or against any equipment roll backs just don't think changing venues in other sports is a 1:1 with golf courses.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,953 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    PGArox wrote:

    gvogel wrote:


    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?




    Changing venues in other sports is not exactly the same. They don't make a football 110 yards instead of 100. They don't start increasing the dimensions of a baseball field every few years to catch up with the players. I'm not arguing for or against any equipment roll backs just don't think changing venues in other sports is a 1:1 with golf courses.




    I don't think Rox is talking about changing the SIZE of the venue; rather changing the venue site.



    He has a valid question. The answer is nostalgia and the "good ol boys club". I would like to see the PGA and US Open expand their list of courses (as they have done a little recently). There are lots of choices.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,652 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I would like to see the PGA and US Open expand their list of courses (as they have done a little recently). There are lots of choices.




    I think you’d be surprised how few options there are for the USGA and PGA once you get into their RFP requirements.
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    edited Dec 16, 2017 #342
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    I would like to see the PGA and US Open expand their list of courses (as they have done a little recently). There are lots of choices.




    I think you'd be surprised how few options there are for the USGA and PGA once you get into their RFP requirements.




    Maybe they should rather change their RFP requirements, than the ball?



    More courses, and different designed courses, would get a chance - and wouldn´t that be more fair?



    ...and tournaments would become more interesting!
  • cxxcxx Members Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:

    I would like to see the PGA and US Open expand their list of courses (as they have done a little recently). There are lots of choices.




    I think you'd be surprised how few options there are for the USGA and PGA once you get into their RFP requirements.




    Out of curiosity, do you have the set of requirements? Or anyone else?
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolinaMembers Posts: 27,593 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    cxx wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    I would like to see the PGA and US Open expand their list of courses (as they have done a little recently). There are lots of choices.




    I think you'd be surprised how few options there are for the USGA and PGA once you get into their RFP requirements.




    Out of curiosity, do you have the set of requirements? Or anyone else?




    $$$$$?
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  3-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 s400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights 


  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,953 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    cxx wrote:

    raynorfan1 wrote:

    I would like to see the PGA and US Open expand their list of courses (as they have done a little recently). There are lots of choices.




    I think you'd be surprised how few options there are for the USGA and PGA once you get into their RFP requirements.




    Out of curiosity, do you have the set of requirements? Or anyone else?




    That would be an interesting read. And remember, the USGA spends millions on some courses, so with that budget, lots of courses could qualify for my list.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,245 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I have been a long time proponent of changing the ball until this week. Listened to Paulson and Paulson and they explained why it wasn't the ball this week. It is driver heads. Their cure was to make driver heads no bigger than 300cc's. By doing so, the manufacturers would then have to tweak the balls to match the size of the heads. With how big the heads are, the OEM's can stretch the sweet spot out and it allows players to go at it 100% because the clubs are so forgiving. Back in the day with Hickory and Persimmon woods you couldn't go at the ball 100% because they would snap and you wouldn't hit the center of the club. If you dial back the drivers to 300cc then you limit how hard a player can go at the ball. It was a really good show.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,936 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Henrik Stenson averages what, about 305 with his 220cc fairway wood?
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolinaMembers Posts: 27,593 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    I have been a long time proponent of changing the ball until this week. Listened to Paulson and Paulson and they explained why it wasn't the ball this week. It is driver heads. Their cure was to make driver heads no bigger than 300cc's. By doing so, the manufacturers would then have to tweak the balls to match the size of the heads. With how big the heads are, the OEM's can stretch the sweet spot out and it allows players to go at it 100% because the clubs are so forgiving. Back in the day with Hickory and Persimmon woods you couldn't go at the ball 100% because they would snap and you wouldn't hit the center of the club. If you dial back the drivers to 300cc then you limit how hard a player can go at the ball. It was a really good show.








    Yep. Been screaming it here. Nice to know the “ learned “ crowd is catching up.
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  3-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 s400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights 


  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolinaMembers Posts: 27,593 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    Henrik Stenson averages what, about 305 with his 220cc fairway wood?






    Stenson is a stud. Would only be a couple who could match that. And his fairway wood is essentially this small Driver that’s being mentioned. It’s around 11 degrees and is playing at 44 inches. That’s not a 3 wood.
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  3-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 s400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights 


  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,953 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    Henrik Stenson averages what, about 305 with his 220cc fairway wood?




    Not even close. His driving average last year was 292.7 yards.
  • ShilgyShilgy PhoenixMembers Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭



    Henrik Stenson averages what, about 305 with his 220cc fairway wood?






    Stenson is a stud. Would only be a couple who could match that. And his fairway wood is essentially this small Driver that’s being mentioned. It’s around 11 degrees and is playing at 44 inches. That’s not a 3 wood.
    The point is the size of the head that some think is a cure all. Watch video some time of Jack, Miller or Arnie swinging driver and tell me they are holding something back because of the size of the club head.
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    I have been a long time proponent of changing the ball until this week. Listened to Paulson and Paulson and they explained why it wasn't the ball this week. It is driver heads. Their cure was to make driver heads no bigger than 300cc's. By doing so, the manufacturers would then have to tweak the balls to match the size of the heads. With how big the heads are, the OEM's can stretch the sweet spot out and it allows players to go at it 100% because the clubs are so forgiving. Back in the day with Hickory and Persimmon woods you couldn't go at the ball 100% because they would snap and you wouldn't hit the center of the club. If you dial back the drivers to 300cc then you limit how hard a player can go at the ball. It was a really good show.




    Chambers Bay #12, 317 yard par 4. DJ and JD both carried the green with 3 woods under 200cc and under the COR limit. Reducing the max club head size alone will not reign in the longest players in on tour.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,245 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Dec 16, 2017 #353
    storm319 wrote:


    I have been a long time proponent of changing the ball until this week. Listened to Paulson and Paulson and they explained why it wasn't the ball this week. It is driver heads. Their cure was to make driver heads no bigger than 300cc's. By doing so, the manufacturers would then have to tweak the balls to match the size of the heads. With how big the heads are, the OEM's can stretch the sweet spot out and it allows players to go at it 100% because the clubs are so forgiving. Back in the day with Hickory and Persimmon woods you couldn't go at the ball 100% because they would snap and you wouldn't hit the center of the club. If you dial back the drivers to 300cc then you limit how hard a player can go at the ball. It was a really good show.




    Chambers Bay #12, 317 yard par 4. DJ and JD both carried the green with 3 woods under 200cc and under the COR limit. Reducing the max club head size alone will not reign in the longest players in on tour.




    The longer hitters will still be the longer

    hitters.
  • grm24grm24 Western PAMembers Posts: 3,464 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Dec 17, 2017 #354
    Shilgy wrote:




    Henrik Stenson averages what, about 305 with his 220cc fairway wood?






    Stenson is a stud. Would only be a couple who could match that. And his fairway wood is essentially this small Driver that's being mentioned. It's around 11 degrees and is playing at 44 inches. That's not a 3 wood.
    The point is the size of the head that some think is a cure all. Watch video some time of Jack, Miller or Arnie swinging driver and tell me they are holding something back because of the size of the club head.
    Seems people forget how small the size of the driver head that John Daly used when he hit the tour in 1991 and what Tiger used when he came on tour in 1996. Drivers well under 300cc. They both hit it a ton using a wound ball and a smaller club head. Mandating a 300cc maximum club head size for drivers would have ZERO impact on driving distance on tour. As mentioned by others look how far players hit 3 woods (140-170cc or so) and how hard players swung using persimmon drivers and wildly inconsistent balata golf balls back in the day. You can not legislate club head speed.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,399 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Dec 17, 2017 #355
    grm24 wrote:

    Shilgy wrote:




    Henrik Stenson averages what, about 305 with his 220cc fairway wood?






    Stenson is a stud. Would only be a couple who could match that. And his fairway wood is essentially this small Driver that's being mentioned. It's around 11 degrees and is playing at 44 inches. That's not a 3 wood.
    The point is the size of the head that some think is a cure all. Watch video some time of Jack, Miller or Arnie swinging driver and tell me they are holding something back because of the size of the club head.
    Seems people forget how small the size of the driver head that John Daly used when he hit the tour in 1991 and what Tiger used when he came on tour in 1996. Drivers well under 300cc. They both hit it a ton using a wound ball and a smaller club head. Mandating a 300cc maximum club head size for drivers would have ZERO impact on driving distance on tour. As mentioned by others look how far players hit 3 woods (140-170cc or so) and how hard players swung using persimmon drivers and wildly inconsistent balata golf balls back in the day. You can not legislate club head speed.




    You guys really believe that ALL players would still drive the ball just as far with smaller head drivers? And throw in a ball that would spin more than the current ball? I don't.



    As others have stated, the longest hitters would still be the longest hitters and the shortest hitters would still be the shortest hitters. But neither would hit the ball as far as they do now. But I also believe that it would affect the longer hitters more than the shorter hitters. By that I mean the longer hitter might see a 10% reduction in distance while the shorter hitter would only see a 5% reduction. Not necessarily those exact numbers but something along that line.



    And I'll even go out on a limb and make a prediction that we will see a "solution" come about something along these lines. The higher your swing speed the greater the affect will be down to a point that lower swing speeds (think somewhere below 100 mph) will see little or no affect on their distance. Of course that's IF they, i.e. the ruling bodies, decide to address the issue at all. And that's a big IF in may mind.
  • ShilgyShilgy PhoenixMembers Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    ^^Tex

    I hope you're wrong. Any change that would result in only one group getting penalized is wrong wrong wrong. If the player hitting it 300 is now at 270 and the 240 is still at 240 how is that a solution?

    You threw in the ball as well. We were discussing just club head size. But any change that disproportionately affects just one group of players cannot be tolerated.

    Which is also imo went the so called "Masters ball" is a terrible idea. Telling players they have to play a certain ball only suits certain players. Some like a softer ball, some spinnier, some firmer. And it would be a disaster as no player would be comfortable playing a ball they do not know the characteristics of on all shots.
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,936 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Dec 17, 2017 #357
    More and more this strikes me as simply nostalgia for those decades when the best players willingly gave up distance by using rubber band wound balls with woefully sub-standard performance at high clubhead speeds.



    People are reaching for any gimmick they can find to trick or force modern players throw away 30, 40, 50 yards of their hard-earned distance. If the ball goes too far, the only way to get the best players to hit it shorter is to change the distance standard.



    These other tricky stratagems are just silly. Almost as risible as when USGA thought a trivial change in wedge grooves would magically change the entire way elite players approach so-called “strategy” in their course management.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,399 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Shilgy wrote:


    ^^Tex

    I hope you're wrong. Any change that would result in only one group getting penalized is wrong wrong wrong. If the player hitting it 300 is now at 270 and the 240 is still at 240 how is that a solution?

    You threw in the ball as well. We were discussing just club head size. But any change that disproportionately affects just one group of players cannot be tolerated.

    Which is also imo went the so called "Masters ball" is a terrible idea. Telling players they have to play a certain ball only suits certain players. Some like a softer ball, some spinnier, some firmer. And it would be a disaster as no player would be comfortable playing a ball they do not know the characteristics of on all shots.




    Here's why I don't think what I described is a problem. In my opinion, the modern ball and the driver club head size gives the faster swing player or longer hitter an advantage over the slower swinger player or shorter hitter. In my mind, what I describe "rectifies" a current imbalance. Of course, my wife would probably tell you that "in my mind" just means I'm probably wrong more often than I'm right. I know it seems that way when she and I are having "discussion", lol.
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,399 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    More and more this strikes me as simply nostalgia for those decades when the best players willingly gave up distance by using rubber band wound balls with woefully sub-standard performance at high clubhead speeds.



    People are reaching for any gimmick they can find to trick or force modern players throw away 30, 40, 50 yards of their hard-earned distance. If the ball goes too far, the only way to get the best players to hit it shorter is to change the distance standard.



    These other tricky stratagems are just silly. Almost as risible as when USGA thought a trivial change in wedge grooves would magically change the entire way elite players approach so-called "strategy" in their course management.




    I have made it very clear in my posts that I there is absolutely nothing wrong with a normal and natural distance increase over a period of time. We saw that from 80 to 95 and again from 02 to 17. However, from 95 to 02 we saw a very definite abnormal increase way out of whack from both before and after.



    And, yes, the distance standard probably should be looked at and perhaps changed.
  • GautamaGautama Members Posts: 789 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I definitely think the game was more fun to watch, and undeniably harder to play, twenty five years ago. But as long as viewing numbers prove otherwise, opinions like mine don't and shouldn't matter...im in the minority.



    But I do question the logic that the USGA shouldn't regulate the ball. They already do. The standards of weight and size are in large part there to regulate how far it goes, and the small, heavy, and illegal "distance balls" that existed in the 80s and 90s aren't as long as standard balls today. Given that, it does seem to me they lost control of something they were intended to control along the way as other unforseen variables proved to matter as the ball evolved.
    "I see the distorted swings, the hurried rounds, and now the electric carts tae ruin the course and rob us of our exercise...we have gone off the mark, gone after the wrong things, forgotten what it's all about"

    -Dr. Julian Sands, Golf in the Kingdom
  • ShilgyShilgy PhoenixMembers Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I haven't read anyone saying the USGA should not regulate the ball. We all agree they should and do.
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file