Jump to content

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


Roadking2003

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 ; )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

$$$$$?

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I am GenX.  If you really think I care about what you have to say, I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I am GenX.  If you really think I care about what you have to say, I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^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.

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

[size=2][i]"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"[/i][/size]

[size=2]-Dr. Julian Sands, Golf in the Kingdom[/size]

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...