Mike Davis on Distance

[sefus12]

No to be rude, but why do some of you have the need to "relate" to the professional golf game and not that same need to relate to other sports?

 

The game of golf isn't in the best of shape right now. Start dialing back equipment and the game will suffer. Equipment sales will suffer. Television viewership will suffer. Tiger was so popular because he was doing things many people had never seen in their lives. Not because he was hitting it as far as your standard 5-handicap.

[gvogel]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

If a club decides collectively it wants to install back tees, why should we care?

 

Should we roll back the ball to make sure new tees aren't added to some random country club in Chadron, Nebraska?

 

IF the USGA or the rules committee at Augusta National decide to hold some of their tournaments with a competition ball, why should you care. You won't have to play it.

[Lodestone]

And, to repeat a point I made earlier, if the landing areas for the big bombers were made more demanding, they wouldn't have to be so tough on the greens to "protect" par, by shaving and rolling them. Yes it would be an inconvenience for the members, but as you point out, hosting an event comes with inconveniences.

 

that's the same thing as the square groove justification - that didn't work at all. it's still a bomb and gouge game.

 

The reason the "bomb and gouge" strategy works is because there is not sufficient penalty for missing the fairway. And face it, those fairway bunkers Mackenzie put in at 240 (or whatever that older distance was) wouldn't really bother the big boys anyway, unless they are really steeply faced. They don't seem to mind long full bunker shots unless the sand is soft, or grooved, or there is a big hole you have to climb into and out of. You can tell they don't like it because they start whining about it.

 

Can't remember the guy's name who does the analyses of strokes gained in driving, putting etc. but it seems to me he says the big boys would rather have 150 in from the rough, than 180 in from the fairway. That's because they aren't afraid of the rough. Except during the US Open. Long grass, narrow fairways in the bomber zone dissuade players from the "bomb and gouge".

 

If they are coming in from 180, vs. 150 or less, then the greens don't have to be lightning. Well, that depends upon the greens as well. If the greens are flat, they need some speed. The problems arise when the hugely contoured greens that were also designed before anyone dreamed of 10 on a stimpmeter are shaved down.

 

The fact that the groove rule didn't accomplish what they envisioned is not the same as what long grass would do.

 

are you saying to cut the rough 4'' long around 290-325 distance but 2'' or less at shorter distances? that seems pretty mickey mouse to me, and an operational nightmare for grounds crews. if you're saying just pinch it in at those distances and the rough is 4'' everywhere, well that would have a massive negative effect on the average player that doesn't hit the fairway and can't reach the green in two anyway. or even for the shorter elite player, when they miss a fairway now they're trying to hit a mid-to-long-iron out of 4'' rough (which results in boring wedge-it-out play) vs the bomber that can still hit 8-W. it also would substantially slow down pace of play.

 

there does need to be SOME reward for being a good driver of the ball.

 

i still see a lot of belief in this thread that dialing back the ball will somehow affect the average player the same as the elite, which i do not believe to be the case at all. the average player likely won't see any difference in distance or performance, where the guy with 110+mph swing speeds has lost 25yds or whatever.

 

sidebar is i also really hate this attitude of catering to the lowest common denominator. golf is hard. it always has been. golf is great in large part because it is difficult, not in spite of it. it sure seems as though some people want an Al Czervik putter with a homing device on it so that they never miss. the irony of it all is that the people that are crying about possibly losing 5yds on their drive with a change in ball don't realize that the course they are playing on is substantially harder than courses of 50yrs ago BECAUSE the ball and equipment have been allowed to progress so much.

 

i'll save my next sidebar rant on TV, the pro tour, augusta, and its impacts on the game both positive and negative for another time. :)

 

I keep saying that the way the club members play the course would be different than the tournament set up, so once again, when the tournament is over and the members, or regular players resume play, you unpinch the fairways in that landing area and cut the rough down to the normal length desired. In one of your posts, maybe the first one on this thread, you made the point that the hazards once placed by the architect are no longer in play for the bombers because they just fly them. So my point is to put something else in their way. If they want to try to hit a 15 yard slot from 350 and can do it, they get a big reward, AND the greens aren't concrete. If they miss, they have been sufficiently penalized.

 

The rough can be the same length the whole way. If Luke Donald misses the fairway with his 240 yard drive, he will also be punished. I would leave it a bit wider. As far as your assertion that there should be some reward for the big hitters, I agree. But also some risk. That's why they put those bunkers in that you were talking about, that they now fly over. Those were originally placed there in order to put some risk into the big hitters shot, were they not?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

rolling back the ball puts the burden on the mfgs rather than on the individual golfers and courses.

 

that seems like a good thing?

 

You've made some great points and articulated them well. But you are still an elite player compared to the rest of us and we don't want the ball rolled back. The ball standard has been set for around 15 years and in the opinion of most is it's fine.

 

Virtually no golf course has been made longer that caters to John Q Public, which is probably 99% of the 28K golf courses in the USA. Sean2 posted some excellent distance stats and it hardly seems most folks are pounding out there other than the few elite.

 

If distance is an issue on tour, then there are options to deal specifically with the tour which include and not limited to;

1. Grow the rough only for tournaments to penalize those that miss the 1st or second cut.

2. Don't cut the fairways so short and don't roll them. Fairways at some of these tour venues roll like greens at many public courses.

3. If they could make a ball that limits distance (pick a number) >115MPH swing speed, but doesn't penalize slower swing speeds, go for it. (I think you suggested it)

4. Limit tour driver shaft length (bifurcation)

5. Tour only ball (bifurcation)

[Lodestone]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

I disagree. I think part of the allure is that we hacks can play essentially the same equipment as the pros. It would be a misfit for most of us, but we can. I don't think it would be very exciting to hear that Dustin Johnson just walloped a 250 yard drive, even if we knew he was hitting a featherie.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

If a club decides collectively it wants to install back tees, why should we care?

 

Should we roll back the ball to make sure new tees aren't added to some random country club in Chadron, Nebraska?

 

IF the USGA or the rules committee at Augusta National decide to hold some of their tournaments with a competition ball, why should you care. You won't have to play it.

 

Most likely I will have to play it. Just like I have to now play wedges with conforming grooves.

 

Even if there are two versions of the ball (which I doubt would happen), I like to see long drives, short irons into greens, and birdies.

 

I don't care to watch 1983 golf with 245 yard drives and 175 yard three iron second shots.

[jslane57]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

I disagree. I think part of the allure is that we hacks can play essentially the same equipment as the pros. It would be a misfit for most of us, but we can. I don't think it would be very exciting to hear that Dustin Johnson just walloped a 250 yard drive, even if we knew he was hitting a featherie.

Does this mean that watching professional baseball has zero allure because they are not using aluminum/carbon bats? I think just the opposite...

[Doyle Hargraves]

rolling back the ball puts the burden on the mfgs rather than on the individual golfers and courses.

 

that seems like a good thing?

 

The financial burden for the competition golf ball will be born by us, the 99%ers.

 

Do we really think that tour players (who don't pay for the golf balls) will be financially impacted by the R and D and manufacturing processes for a "tour approved" golf ball?

 

Get serious, not going to happen. The price of non-approved balls will go up to compensate.

 

Consequently, I fully expect those who are for bifurcation to agree in this thread to pay more for their Pro V1s to appease Mike Davis and Gary Player.

[jayman2982]

Most of us don't play courses from the back tees and 7300 yards. We don't play the same courses the pros do in that respect. Then why should you play the same ball the pros do. The game is not hard because the average player doesn't hit the ball far enough. The game is hard to them because they don't hit it solid, can't aim worth a $hit, and never club properly etc

 

I don't play from the back tees to enhance my ego, I play from there because my game and distance of clubs dictates they are the tees for me. I get that people like to feel that they play the same equipment as their favorite player and have some type of connection with them but that shouldn't dictate the way the pros play.

 

I do agree with what someone else has said that pinching the fairway and growing the rough is the easiest solution for tournament play.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

rolling back the ball puts the burden on the mfgs rather than on the individual golfers and courses.

 

that seems like a good thing?

 

The financial burden for the competition golf ball will be born by us, the 99%ers.

 

Do we really think that tour players (who don't pay for the golf balls) will be financially impacted by the R and D and manufacturing processes for a "tour approved" golf ball?

 

Get serious, not going to happen. The price of non-approved balls will go up to compensate.

 

Consequently, I fully expect those who are for bifurcation to agree in this thread to pay more for their Pro V1s to appease Mike Davis and Gary Player.

 

That is an excellent point I hadn't yet seen made in this thread.

[sefus12]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

[jslane57]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

[tnord]

i'm not getting into a pricing discussion around if Noodles and NXT golf balls will go up in price.....

 

i know i've said it half a dozen times in this thread....but i don't believe you'd have to go with two different balls, though i'd be fine with that. if you roll back the ball for everyone, it's really only people with swing speeds well above 100 that lose significant distance. the regular golfer with a "nerfed" golf ball will still hit it the same 225-250 off the tee they always have. but the guys moving it 300+ are now hitting 280 or whatever.

 

and by the way...just pinching in the fairways for tournaments isn't as simple as it seems. in many many areas, fairway grass and rough grass are different a different variety.

[tnord]

 

I don't care to watch 1983 golf with 245 yard drives and 175 yard three iron second shots.

 

i'm 100% genuine when i ask why not?

[SplashShot]

Put shaft length and club loft back to the same as it was 70 years ago and we are a lot closer to the values of old.

 

I hate seeing a 7 iron in 1947 compared to a 7 iron in 2017. It's not even close to the same club. How far did a 5 iron with a shorter shaft go in 1947? That's a better comparison to a 7 iron today.

[tnord]

shorter shafts are a red herring.....

 

how many 6'3'' guys were out there playing golf in the 30s? some of the driver shaft length is silly....but that's typically employed by the regular weekender, not the elite or pro. my stuff plays to a length according to my height, not what is on the sales rack.

[Sean2]

I admittedly have not read through all of the sh*t on here (mine included before hitting POST). But, how about limiting driver shaft length to 44" instead of messing up industry with the ball? I know I hit it more solidly with a shorter shaft. My pops got fitted for a 45.75" driver the other day, and I thought it was borderline suicide. Sure, he a few bombs on the monitor, but he will struggle with that club down the road, as we all might. Maybe the old fuddy duddies will be happy when drivers are 44" again so nobody can break their records. Probably won't make a difference given the athleticism, but it ain't for lack of trying while they are still alive, right? That's kind of the whole point here, as I see it.

Perhaps that's why the ideal height for golf used to be 5'10". Based on the 43.5" drivers of the day. Your suggestion would harm tall players more than short. And, there are players on tour already using 44" and under.

 

 

When I was fit for my driver...45.5 inches...the fitter said that length for me was comparable to a person of average height playing a 43.5 inch driver.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

 

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

[tnord]

sour grapes by who?

 

i'm proposing to change the ball to my own detriment and making the game easier for the average player.

[Ajit]

If this is really a problem they should cut the grass back towards the players. I don't think anyone averages over 300 yards off the tee at Augusta anymore.

[jslane57]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

 

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

Because simply the courses are not all just a little longer, and don't need to be. Because the rounds of golf don't need to be any longer. The inflated distance numbers of the last decade smell no better...

[Roadking2003]

Go back a little more...Like to when there were wound golf balls and wooden drivers.

 

Or even more when there were hickory shafts..... but so what?

[Roadking2003]

Billions of dollars altering courses, check.

 

I seriously doubt that.

 

I've been a member of clubs for the past four decades that have seven courses. Not one of them has been lengthened.

[Roadking2003]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

 

One horse left the barn.

[Roadking2003]

I dont have anything against hybrids but pros shouldn't have to use forgiving clubs. They have no pride in their ball striking.

You think Hogan would have used a hybrid?

 

Yes, he would. His goal was to win, not to win with inferior equipment.

[Lodestone]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

I disagree. I think part of the allure is that we hacks can play essentially the same equipment as the pros. It would be a misfit for most of us, but we can. I don't think it would be very exciting to hear that Dustin Johnson just walloped a 250 yard drive, even if we knew he was hitting a featherie.

Does this mean that watching professional baseball has zero allure because they are not using aluminum/carbon bats? I think just the opposite...

 

Watching golf on TV would not have "zero" allure for me if they used a different ball, but it would have less than it does. Which is why I said that it was "part" of the allure, and not "all" of the allure.

[Roadking2003]

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

 

it is.

 

The best will win on any course using any equipment. Tiger would have won in the 1950s and Jack would win today.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

 

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

Because simply the courses are not all just a little longer, and don't need to be. Because the rounds of golf don't need to be any longer. The inflated distance numbers of the last decade smell no better...

 

I'm still struggling to see a problem. If it's distilled down to length of rounds for hackers on the weekends, I definitely don't see a problem caused by equipment. Give them the best stuff available, and it should solve everything, right? It's so easy with the newer stuff . . .

 

The inflated distance numbers are the sour grapes of has-beens who think, "Dammit, that guy shouldn't hit it further than I could back in the day, dammit. Delores, can you get me a sandwich with some ham? Yeah, I want mustard! Why even ask? Dammit! How come you can make that so quickly? Damned sliced bread, ain't it? Dammit!"

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Then why change anything? So everyone hits it a little longer. The best are still the best.

This whole debate smells like sour grapes.

 

it is.

 

The best will win on any course using any equipment. Tiger would have won in the 1950s and Jack would win today.

 

Truth.

[Shilgy]

I really hate the idea of punishing the longer hitters on tour just so the USGA can feel good about themselves. It's not DJ/JB/Rory/#nameanotherlonghitter's fault that they have trained hard enough or have the natural ability to hit a drive 320 yards. This is why I'm 100% against some sort of "tour" ball that limits distance.

 

Slow the fairways down? Have at it. More penal landing areas? Go for it. But doing something to "even" the pro players out just seems unfair to those who have the ability to hit it far. What's next? Will the USGA do something to mandate that JB can putt more like Ben Crenshaw?

Who would be punishing the long hitters? They would still be the long hitters. It's not like NASCAR where everyone goes the same speed max. So everyone hits it a little shorter. The whole trained hard argument is a bit silly, the strongest men in the world can't lob a shot put 320 yards, but the best are still the best...

Pretty sure he was replying to the guy with the idea that from 300-325 off the tee the fairway should be pinched in to punish test the long hitters but leave them wide open for the short hitters. Somewhat the equivalent of making a course with every hole a sharp dogleg at 280. Why should a DJ or Roy have to hit two iron off the tee because someone decided that is the maximum a tee shot should be hit?