Dean Snell's Video on the Distance debate

[davep043]

I think that variety would be good. What I prefer is to allow the potential for long and straight to get a big advantage, and for long and crooked (or short and crooked for that matter) to get punished pretty severely. That makes each player evaluate his own game, to sacrifice distance at times. I'd probably prefer it that way, at least on a regular basis, and it sounds like you might feel the same. And I don't mind the occasional Whether its good for the PGA Tour overall, I don't know. What I do know is that the PGA Tour is the face of the debate over driving distance, so if the PGA Tour does things that decrease overall driving distance, the issue will probably seem less critical.

 

 

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

They won’t “mess” with our requirements, but like all other changes, all golfers will eventually be forced to play what the elites play. Whether by ego or by clubs that want to use “standard” equipment or whatnot. It’s part of human nature.

Bifurcation will be next to impossible to regulate.

Would you like someone to establish a handicap with pro conforming equipment, which would be presumably allowed, then play against you with amateur equipment that allows them to hit 20% further than their handicap reflects?

[cougarthesecond]

Maybe PGA Tour should use the old reliable pin placement system for their tournament golf course set-ups. : 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. One third easy course set-ups, one third medium hard, one third brutal. And use that set up every year. Viewers would know that this week the golf will be tough because it's the Honda. Then next week it will be easy because it's the John Deere. This familiarity is one of the things that makes the Masters so appealing to the golf viewer.

[Mudguard]

Bifurcation is inevitable. The bulk of golfers (outside of this website) couldn't care less what professionals use. Bifurcation would be pretty easy if it was just a ball change, IE something slower for pros, the manufactures would make them, label them ProV 1XY or something. Regular players would use the existing ball, and it would be up to each regional authority to decide when that ball would be used, New Zealand Amateur, perhaps, everything else use the normal ball. Making elite level amateurs use it would only be required for events where there was a real chance of the bulk of those players turning pro. Or just leave it for when you turn pro.

As for the last example, if someone is good enough to use a short ball in amateur competition (say your Saturday haggle) as they are a young and up and coming player, then I don't think they'll have much of an issue with a fifteen handicapper squeezing one past them with the normal "hot" ball.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Agreed. I like the last part.

[DFinch]

Slower by how much? The ball speed limit has been in place since 1942. Do they roll it back to a slower ball than Jack's era used? Was that ball slower?

For me that's the problem. There are a lot of assumptions about the previous mainstream golf balls of the 20th century, like "wound balls were slower" or "wound balls spun more". Except that launch monitor testing has shown that, using the Professional 90 as an example, it spun essentially the same as the ProV1 off wedge, 7-iron, and driver. The ball speed was the same with wedge, 3mph slower with 7-iron, and 3mph slower with driver. Spin was lower with wedge by 100rpm, 200rpm higher with 7-iron, and 28rpm (yes, 28) higher with with driver. That was a liquid core, rubber wound ball that had sat in a closet for 21 years. Knowing how rubber deteriorates, would a fresh Professional 90 regain that 3mph ball speed? I believe it would. As someone who believed the "myths" and have played long enough to have played with wound balata and wound urethane, I was surprised by the results. The Professional was the introduction of cast urethane on what was otherwise the Tour 90 balata ball.

Was balata slower? I don't know. What was gained by going to urethane was durability. Balata is a natural compound and hasn't been used in so long that trying to compare a 30 year old ball to a fresh 2020 ball would be impossible just from deterioration alone. Consider the core was the same and that is the driving force behind ball speed, I'd reasonably conclude it was the same.

So, if all that is true (and it would take someone manufacturing a fresh batch of Titleist Tour Balata balls to verify), we're talking about rolling the ball back to slower than the limit set in 1942. The rubber wound ball was invented in 1932.

I don't want a rollback based on perceptions or feelings. If the conclusion is distance is the result of equipment (ball, club, whatever) then I want it to be scientific and precise. I have same swing speed I had in 1991. I hit the ball the same distance with all clubs (not just driver) as I did in 1991. I actually went back to a persimmon driver from steel when steel was the new thing because it was longer and more forgiving. Steel caught up around the Big Bertha revolution because they got the weighting right. When 460cc drivers became the rage I actually hit it shorter because they spun too much. I played a 260cc driver for four years and a 365cc driver for 8 years, well into the 460cc craze. Advancements in measuring technology and a better understanding of CG locations eventually got the 460cc driver where it is today, which performs the same as the past generation on center hits but retains ball speed better on mishits...so averages are improved but total potential distance stays the same. I still have that 365cc driver and I hit it the same distance as my 460cc driver on center hits. The distance gain on tour, imo, is a combination of a larger pool of better/faster athletes and a much better understanding (and ability to measure and adjust) optimal launch conditions.

In 1952 the number of players in the NBA that were 6'9"-7' was 10. In 2016 it was 150. Should the height of the hoop be raised? That has been an ongoing debate as player height has grown. If you raise the hoop, will that raise the height of sought after players over time? That's the correlation I see with the PGA. You can slow the ball down, slow the driver down, try to shorten the current professional player, roll the whole equipment part of the game back 80 years (which is what it would take)...and over time you will draw faster and faster athletes until we're back to this again.. What I don't like is when well known and well respected people (like Jack, who I am not quoting) say things like "the ball is faster" or "the ball spins less". I believed it, but I've seen enough modern monitor testing that I'm no longer convinced, recognizing the ball speed difference is debatable and would love to see it confirmed/disproven. I don't know what manufacturer would be willing to spend the money to tool up for a recreation of the wound ball. Maybe Titleist has a machine laying around that would let them do it.

IF the pre-ProV1 ball was in fact 3mph slower, that scrubs 9-11 yards off driver carry and about 6 yards on 7-iron. Does the roughly 1/4" decrease in fairway height and general agronomy changes, coupled with optimizing for a new launch/spin window, bring those lost yards right back so that a major change and all the costs that go with it result in no change? That's what happened with square grooves, since it allowed ball manufacturers to soften the cover and retain durability vs. the newer, cover friendlier groove requirements resulting in no appreciable spin loss and therefore no change in the game (which was the goal). All it did was cost money.

My first take on all this when it started to gain traction was roll back head size. Smaller drivers are in fact less forgiving. The problem with that is pro's have no problem with center contact and they hit optimized 3W with sub-200cc heads nearly as far as drivers...so I'm not sure that would change anything on tour either and we've had 260cc since 1996 or so, which would mean rolling back over 25 years not knowing if it would actually change professional distance (back to Tiger's steel head, steel shaft, wound ball comparison from 1997).

 

[Mudguard]

You make some good points. I'm not suggesting there is a distance problem at amateur level, just playing devil's advocate. I'm aware of the ball speed limit that has been in place for a long time (I thought it was from the seventies to be honest). The reality is that same ball is being hit harder, by bigger and more athletic players. So if you have to slow it down, then it doesn't matter if it's slower than a Balata or a Professional. If they wanted a 10% reduction, then they take it down to that.

I'm simply suggesting that the ball would be the easiest of solutions for pros, rather than banning equipment, setting fairway height limits etc.

[cougarthesecond]

"I'm simply suggesting that the ball would be the easiest of solutions for pros..."

"Solution" means there is a problem to be solved. I just don't think its a problem...I think its a juicy topic to toss around and debate...but not a real problem.

 

[airjammer]

I’ve always said you like who you like on your largely because the Tour has rewarded a certain style of play. Regardless of the style of play the great players would adapt and still be great So I’m not talking about them but I think we all agree that the tour would rather have Rory win than Hatton. The scappy players have a better chance of winning on a course where accuracy matters more than other weeks. Most of the scappy players just don’t seem to have anything that makes them very marketable....grit and determination isn’t as sexy as the long ball and model wives.

So there is plenty $ of reasons why the pga tour doesn’t want any part of a rollback.

One of the reasons I use to like watch a lot of European tour events was because of how It appeared that everyone in the field had a equal chance of winning most weeks from the very start because of the courses they played and the weather playing a part as well.

[DFinch]

I hear you. I just want it to be based on reality and a conscious, specific decision and not all the theoretical claims that have been thrown out by various entities over the last 20 years. "It's the ball" was way to easy and oversimplified (that's not aimed at you, I completely understand your argument that that ball would be the least intrusive change). If the ruling bodies decided they need to slow the ball down to pre-1942 speed then they need to at least be honest that the modern athlete has required them to handicap to technology prior the "greats" of the 20th century. We already have issues trying to compare eras, I can only imagine how it would be if they decided the modern player is so good/fast/long that they have to give them a slower ball than Hogan or Jack used. Good grief. To me that's like making the mile longer because the 4-minute mile was broken, or require runners to wear shoes that weigh the same as they did in 1936. They could certainly do that, but what a mess.

IF the modern ball is truly faster/longer and/or IF modern clubs are lruly longer then there's an argument. It would also mean that they screwed up the ball speed limit (1942), the CT/COR limit (1998), and the driver size limit (2004). It would also ignore that modern players hit all their clubs longer, which is part of the reason I think some people assumed it was the ball and not the faster athlete. Jack has gone on record saying the iron distance increase is the ball. What none of them talk about is, if true, why? It's all measurable now. It wasn't in their day, not in the detail we can get today. On the test I've referenced with the old, potentially deteriorated Professional 90, the 7-iron went 6 yards shorter. Jack claimed the ProV1 immediately added "10-15" yards to iron shots. In the test, launch was the same (.5* lower) and spin was within 200rpms (higher). Both of those are within margin of error for strike. The only difference was that 3 mph of ball speed that we don't know would be there in a new wound ball. If the ProV1 and modern balls since then are "10-15" yards longer on irons and (as I've seen referenced repeatedly in articles that don't cite actual testing) "35 yards longer off driver", then I want to see the data. It's quite possible, with his launch conditions as a high ball hitter, he gained 10-15 yards with his irons and the why would be measurable. Maybe Azinger, as a low ball hitter, didn't see that same change.

I just want the anecdotes removed. Trevino claimed that if they had modern equipment they would have all driven it over 300 yards and Jack would have hit it 360. Maybe, maybe not. Jack hit a 341 yard drive in 1963. He and Palmer both drove a 330 yard par 4. That puts me back in the chicken or egg question...If young Jack was playing on modern length courses, even with old equipment, he'd be able to hit it as far as the modern pro and he'd have to.

 

 

[OrangeGravy]

Or they'd focus on short game and other things that would make their game/score better if they lost 50 yards.

[farmer]

It would be dead easy to set up a tournament course with slightly longer fairways and normal fairway watering.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

They still have to get to the greens.

[storm319]

Agreed and until the PGA Tour changes formats to a pitch and putt or full time par 3, this is unlikely to come to fruition.