Mike Davis on Distance

[Webby58]

Is Davis on crack? A two hour round of golf if we make the ball fly shorter and go back to building courses on 70 acres.In your dreams

 

Tech has improved, the game has evolved. I like my ball and I like my driver. I like watching DJ crank one 350 plus.

 

Live with it Davis. Ya let's make the game real exciting and go back to gutter percha balls and hickory shafts. Davis you and Nicklaus are dinosaurs. This is the 21st century. get with the times

[gvogel]

Is Davis on crack? A two hour round of golf if we make the ball fly shorter and go back to building courses on 70 acres.In your dreams

 

Tech has improved, the game has evolved. I like my ball and I like my driver. I like watching DJ crank one 350 plus.

 

Live with it Davis. Ya let's make the game real exciting and go back to gutter percha balls and hickory shafts. Davis you and Nicklaus are dinosaurs. This is the 21st century. get with the times

 

Guess we know where you stand.

 

Guess you also don't mind 5-1/2 hour rounds of golf.

[Webby58]

Is Davis on crack? A two hour round of golf if we make the ball fly shorter and go back to building courses on 70 acres.In your dreams

 

Tech has improved, the game has evolved. I like my ball and I like my driver. I like watching DJ crank one 350 plus.

 

Live with it Davis. Ya let's make the game real exciting and go back to gutter percha balls and hickory shafts. Davis you and Nicklaus are dinosaurs. This is the 21st century. get with the times

 

Guess we know where you stand.

 

Guess you also don't mind 5-1/2 hour rounds of golf.

 

No I enjoy a nice 3 1/2 to 4 hour rounds. I get out nice and early on Sat & Sun mornings and enjoy myself. I try to avoid Golf Courses on the weekend afternoons. That's when the hacks are out and the main cause of the 5 1/2 hour rounds, not the golf ball

[North Butte]

Any place where the golf takes 5-1/2 hours is going to be too slow for me even if everyone were forced to play a ball that flies shorter. Someone swinging like a gorilla and hitting wild-a** 280-yard drives with a ProV1 is going to swing like a gorilla and hit wild 240-yard drives with a Cayman ball.

 

And no matter how short the ball flies it's going to take the same amount of time to fiddle with alignment lines, take practice swings and chat up the cart girl.

[Lagavulin62]

Avoided this thread because I figured it would be loaded with the "hit it 350+" crowd. But I just read first page.

 

Won't say much because it's already been said. I think there is a lot to be said about keeping the game to a level we can relate to. Growing up it was the one sport where you always felt it wasn't so dependent on natural talent. That unlike baseball or basketball, if you really worked at it you could achieve some level of success similar to the pros. Golfers, many didn't even look like athletes at one time. Now, it just seems the game requires natural born jock itch talent to even understand whats going on out there. You don't have to go back very far to reach the relatable age of golf and the tour. Anyway I will stop and just say it would be nice to see the game return to shotmaking.

[North Butte]

Avoided this thread because I figured it would be loaded with the "hit it 350+" crowd. But I just read first page.

 

Won't say much because it's already been said. I think there is a lot to be said about keeping the game to a level we can relate to. Growing up it was the one sport where you always felt it wasn't so dependent on natural talent. That unlike baseball or basketball, if you really worked at it you could achieve some level of success similar to the pros. Golfers, many didn't even look like athletes at one time. Now, it just seems the game requires natural born jock itch talent to even understand whats going on out there. You don't have to go back very far to reach the relatable age of golf and the tour. Anyway I will stop and just say it would be nice to see the game return to shotmaking.

 

That sounds as though you are saying the game's only value is in trying to be like the guys you see playing on TV.

 

I can't think of ANY of the best players I play with who look different than similar players would have looked in 1950. OK, maybe fatter because we're all fatter nowadays.

 

But a tubby middle-aged non-athlete can get every bit as much enjoyment of the game today as in prior eras. If anything the modern equipment makes it a bit easier for those of lacking any sort of hand-eye coordination.

 

Wishing that the entire game were different so that incredibly strong, fit, talented and trained athletes have zero advantage is asking an awful lot, for no real benefit.

 

How exactly would replacing the ProV1 with a ball that flies 20% shorter make the game more relatable for you? Because it would mean Dustin Johnson only hits it half a mile past you instead of a mile?

[Lagavulin62]

Avoided this thread because I figured it would be loaded with the "hit it 350+" crowd. But I just read first page.

 

Won't say much because it's already been said. I think there is a lot to be said about keeping the game to a level we can relate to. Growing up it was the one sport where you always felt it wasn't so dependent on natural talent. That unlike baseball or basketball, if you really worked at it you could achieve some level of success similar to the pros. Golfers, many didn't even look like athletes at one time. Now, it just seems the game requires natural born jock itch talent to even understand whats going on out there. You don't have to go back very far to reach the relatable age of golf and the tour. Anyway I will stop and just say it would be nice to see the game return to shotmaking.

 

That sounds as though you are saying the game's only value is in trying to be like the guys you see playing on TV.

 

I can't think of ANY of the best players I play with who look different than similar players would have looked in 1950. OK, maybe fatter because we're all fatter nowadays.

 

But a tubby middle-aged non-athlete can get every bit as much enjoyment of the game today as in prior eras. If anything the modern equipment makes it a bit easier for those of lacking any sort of hand-eye coordination.

 

Wishing that the entire game were different so that incredibly strong, fit, talented and trained athletes have zero advantage is asking an awful lot, for no real benefit.

 

How exactly would replacing the ProV1 with a ball that flies 20% shorter make the game more relatable for you? Because it would mean Dustin Johnson only hits it half a mile past you instead of a mile?

 

 

Not even half of what you are saying. Pros will always be better, they have always hit the ball farther. But the gap between the two and the lack of being required to work the ball is what are the most striking differences. As for the athleticism, some of it might be due to golf not being the exclusive game it once was and thus attracting those that might have played other sports. Thats a good thing of course. But all I am saying is I belive there is a lot of merit to the distance being something that makes golf less relateable today as in other generations. And I'm not going back to the 50's.

[Webby58]

The point here is thanks to technology, ie Trackman, Flight Scope we are better able to understand what the optimal flight condition for a golf ball. As a result the manufacturers can better design golf balls and golf clubs to meet these conditions. As a result of this technology we can better understand how to swing the golf club to create these conditions. As a result the game evolves and improves. Professional golfers are now taking fitness more seriously and training to become better athletes. So now what? Is the USGA going to make working out illegal. heaven forbid pro golfers become well trained athletes and as a result hit the ball farther. What is so wrong with golf evolving, equipment improving and golfers actually become athletes. Like I said before it's the 21st century

[North Butte]

His comments are all about trying to make a fairly simple bit of woulda, coulda, shoulda sounds like some sort of moral high ground. He's really saying, "There was a brief opportunity 20 years ago for the organization I now work for to lay the groundwork for a game today that would preferable in many aspects. They blew it, horse is out of the barn, spilt milk, yada, yada".

 

When the multipiece Urethane balls first hit the market it required an immediate revamping of the test procedure and standards for USGA/R&A golf ball conformance. If they had immediately clamped down on performance at very high clubhead speeds (120mph and up) everyone would have gone along with whatever standards, within reason, they chose.

 

Given the immense performance advantages latent in the design, they could have settled on a new distance standard that was 10% or even 15% less than what ProV1x produces today and early on they could have sold the golfing world on it. That performance would still be far better overall than the crappy wound balls that elite players were using at the time.

 

But no, instead they stuck their fingers in their ears and said, "Nah-nah-han we can't hear you" and pretended nothing had changed. A couple years went by, everyone adopted the new balls, the manufacturers found more and more ways of adding performance to the basic multipiece Urethane design and when they finally got around to admitting that the ball was going miles farther, nobody was going to stand for having peformance rolled back by that 10-15% at that point.

 

So they drew a line in the sand at pretty where we are today. Yeah, there keep being tiny incremental increases in ball performance around the margins but a 2017 ProV1x is pretty similar in performance to the very first ProV1 for elite player. At least when, for perspective, you compare it to what they were playing in the mid-1990's.

 

I totally agree that a certain amount of expense and trouble regarding the size of courses, revamping classic venues to keep them major competition relevant and so forth would be minimized if the current ball had a couple notches less performance. And if there had never been ProV1-class balls allowed into the game we'd all be none the wiser. But out of sheer arrogance and political inertia they opted to let the current situation evolve instead. No big deal, nobody is going back at this point anyway.

[jslane57]

The point here is thanks to technology, ie Trackman, Flight Scope we are better able to understand what the optimal flight condition for a golf ball. As a result the manufacturers can better design golf balls and golf clubs to meet these conditions. As a result of this technology we can better understand how to swing the golf club to create these conditions. As a result the game evolves and improves. Professional golfers are now taking fitness more seriously and training to become better athletes. So now what? Is the USGA going to make working out illegal. heaven forbid pro golfers become well trained athletes and as a result hit the ball farther. What is so wrong with golf evolving, equipment improving and golfers actually become athletes. Like I said before it's the 21st century

All of this is well and good. Nothing is disputed here. But lets face it, these things have happened relatively quickly. And the manufacturers took advantage of golf rules that were in place that [the rules] couldn't foresee such change. Just because science has evolved faster than the rules is not a good reason to not change the rules to get the game back to where the governing bodies think it should be. If they decide it is perfect now, fine. but they could very easily make it a bit more challenging for the top one percent by walking back some of the extreme advances. This absurd idea of legislating not working out truly taints the rest of an otherwise solid reasoning about exactly how the equipment/technology has spurred such advances...

[Lagavulin62]

The point here is thanks to technology, ie Trackman, Flight Scope we are better able to understand what the optimal flight condition for a golf ball. As a result the manufacturers can better design golf balls and golf clubs to meet these conditions. As a result of this technology we can better understand how to swing the golf club to create these conditions. As a result the game evolves and improves. Professional golfers are now taking fitness more seriously and training to become better athletes. So now what? Is the USGA going to make working out illegal. heaven forbid pro golfers become well trained athletes and as a result hit the ball farther. What is so wrong with golf evolving, equipment improving and golfers actually become athletes. Like I said before it's the 21st century

 

 

I think you make some great points and I don't want anyone to think I am against improving the game and golfers maximizing their athleticism. But I think its a valid analogy to compare golf courses to other sports venues. They still use 400-450 foot baseball fields. 100 yard football fields, basketball goals are still 10ft. But the golf courses keep getting longer. Can anybody argue that althletes in the the big 3 today are not better trained than in earlier generations? Why are we not playing on 800 foot baseball fields, why isn't the goal 15 feet, or the football field 200 yards? Something must be going on thats not happening in golf.

[youngwaldo]

I like playing from the longest tees because I want to punish myself everytime I play.

 

Wk

[jslane57]

The point here is thanks to technology, ie Trackman, Flight Scope we are better able to understand what the optimal flight condition for a golf ball. As a result the manufacturers can better design golf balls and golf clubs to meet these conditions. As a result of this technology we can better understand how to swing the golf club to create these conditions. As a result the game evolves and improves. Professional golfers are now taking fitness more seriously and training to become better athletes. So now what? Is the USGA going to make working out illegal. heaven forbid pro golfers become well trained athletes and as a result hit the ball farther. What is so wrong with golf evolving, equipment improving and golfers actually become athletes. Like I said before it's the 21st century

 

 

I think you make some great points and I don't want anyone to think I am against improving the game and golfers maximizing their athleticism. But I think its a valid analogy to compare golf courses to other sports venues. They still use 400-450 foot baseball fields. 100 yard football fields, basketball goals are still 10ft. But the golf courses keep getting longer. Can anybody argue that althletes in the the big 3 today are not better trained than in earlier generations? Why are we not playing on 800 foot baseball fields, why isn't the goal 15 feet, or the football field 200 yards? Something must be going on thats not happening in golf.

Exactly. The difference is the big 3 as you call them don't use technology that is any different than it has been for generations. Baseball bats still wooden. Football is a football. Basketball is a basketball. The advancements in these sports are human driven, not equipment driven. Of course there would have been improvements from generation to generation in golf even if the equipment had not been so altered, but it surely wouldn't be were it is today. I'd argue that the modern helmet is a huge contributing factor for the mass number of concussions in football today, but that's another debate...

[disco111]

OK, we all realize that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak and the USGA now has max limits on equipment and it looks as though, through Mr Davis viewpoint, that they acknowledge the ball position on distance.................so the big question is or should be.......what happens with manufactures / technology now? If we've established total limits on equipment, what's exactly left for the game?

[Lagavulin62]

OK, we all realize that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak and the USGA now has max limits on equipment and it looks as though, through Mr Davis viewpoint, that they acknowledge the ball position on distance.................so the big question is or should be.......what happens with manufactures / technology now? If we've established total limits on equipment, what's exactly left for the game?

 

 

Are you trying to say that golf could only survive with manufactures using technology to push the limits, such as car racing for example?

[North Butte]

Gradual, incremental refinements overall. Product differentiation through meaningless cosmetics and variations on a model-to-model basis. Same as it was for the several decades that everyone was playing wooden woods and wound balls.

 

Every couple of generations there is a major sea change in golf equipment. The Haskell ball, steel shafts, metal driver heads, the sand wedge. In between there are long period of slight improvements but mostly unchanged performance.

[Sean2]

I was reading in Golf Digest that the average 60+ year old drives the ball 196 yards, and the average golfer 215 yards. The only thing that needs to be dialed back is the USGA.

[Webby58]

Gradual, incremental refinements overall. Product differentiation through meaningless cosmetics and variations on a model-to-model basis. Same as it was for the several decades that everyone was playing wooden woods and wound balls.

 

Every couple of generations there is a major sea change in golf equipment. The Haskell ball, steel shafts, metal driver heads, the sand wedge. In between there are long period of slight improvements but mostly unchanged performance.

Yes Golf is an evolving game, so why are we fighting it. Hey I'm 59 and just recently got my Epic SZ. That and along with taking some lesson this spring I'm finally hitting my drives 250 plus again. 59 the new 25 with the help of new tech :)

[tnord]

why we should fight it has been outlined a million times. whether you choose to acknowledge those drawbacks of distance is up to you.

[North Butte]

There's nothing to fight. Nobody is going to start playing balls that go shorter. 20 years ago we could've had a conversation about it. Now it is water under the bridge, crocodile tears from Mike Davis not withstanding.

[jslane57]

Yes, the USGA may be the wrong battlefield. Bifurcation with the PGA tour is where energy should be focused for those wanting to keep professional golf and amateur golf somewhat similar. Many say, "why, why does it matter?" And it matters because the guys that only hit the ball 200 want to play the courses the pros do. And they have the money and time to do so. And at today's length of the elites, that means making tee boxes in the middle of the fairway. The separation between the elite and the regular guy has gotten too far apart for realisticly sharing golf courses. At the end of the day, sharing golf courses is exactly the goal of both camps...

[disco111]

Are you trying to say that golf could only survive with manufactures using technology to push the limits, such as car racing for example?

 

The game of golf, unto itself will be fine. The objective of the manufactures was to sell equipment and much, if not all, was based upon the player achieving more and more distance, year in and year out. Now that limits have been established, at least for equipment and presumably the ball as well, where and what does the manufactures now do to entice the buying golfing public. The manufactures were allowed to run rampant with technology and that was and is the major selling point for their bottom line - technology. Car racing is a very different animal, with very different parameters. Really can't compare the two, at least imo..........

[new2g0lf]

Yes, the USGA may be the wrong battlefield. Bifurcation with the PGA tour is where energy should be focused for those wanting to keep professional golf and amateur golf somewhat similar. Many say, "why, why does it matter?" And it matters because the guys that only hit the ball 200 want to play the courses the pros do. And they have the money and time to do so. And at today's length of the elites, that means making tee boxes in the middle of the fairway. The separation between the elite and the regular guy has gotten too far apart for realisticly sharing golf courses. At the end of the day, sharing golf courses is exactly the goal of both camps...

I can play Bethpage Black and Shinnecock today without bifurcation. Playing the regulation tees at Bethpage Black the course plays 6684 yards, why do I need to play the same tees as the pro's?

[jslane57]

Yes, the USGA may be the wrong battlefield. Bifurcation with the PGA tour is where energy should be focused for those wanting to keep professional golf and amateur golf somewhat similar. Many say, "why, why does it matter?" And it matters because the guys that only hit the ball 200 want to play the courses the pros do. And they have the money and time to do so. And at today's length of the elites, that means making tee boxes in the middle of the fairway. The separation between the elite and the regular guy has gotten too far apart for realisticly sharing golf courses. At the end of the day, sharing golf courses is exactly the goal of both camps...

I can play Bethpage Black and Shinnecock today without bifurcation. Playing the regulation tees at Bethpage Black the course plays 6684 yards, why do I need to play the same tees as the pro's?

Nothing golf is about need. It is all about want. And you must hit the ball farther than 200 yards...

[One_Putt_Blunder]

Yes, the USGA may be the wrong battlefield. Bifurcation with the PGA tour is where energy should be focused for those wanting to keep professional golf and amateur golf somewhat similar. Many say, "why, why does it matter?" And it matters because the guys that only hit the ball 200 want to play the courses the pros do. And they have the money and time to do so. And at today's length of the elites, that means making tee boxes in the middle of the fairway. The separation between the elite and the regular guy has gotten too far apart for realisticly sharing golf courses. At the end of the day, sharing golf courses is exactly the goal of both camps...

 

And it matters because the guys that only hit the ball 200 want to play the courses the pros do

Until people start building courses with 1 tee box at tips length they absolutely can.

 

And at today's length of the elites, that means making tee boxes in the middle of the fairway

It doesn't see above and below

 

too far apart for realistically sharing golf courses

No. just look at Erin Hills there is a tee box for just about everyone.

 

[new2g0lf]

Yes, the USGA may be the wrong battlefield. Bifurcation with the PGA tour is where energy should be focused for those wanting to keep professional golf and amateur golf somewhat similar. Many say, "why, why does it matter?" And it matters because the guys that only hit the ball 200 want to play the courses the pros do. And they have the money and time to do so. And at today's length of the elites, that means making tee boxes in the middle of the fairway. The separation between the elite and the regular guy has gotten too far apart for realisticly sharing golf courses. At the end of the day, sharing golf courses is exactly the goal of both camps...

I can play Bethpage Black and Shinnecock today without bifurcation. Playing the regulation tees at Bethpage Black the course plays 6684 yards, why do I need to play the same tees as the pro's?

Nothing golf is about need. It is all about want. And you must hit the ball farther than 200 yards...

 

Most golf courses accommodate long and short hitters so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea everyone has to hit as long as the pro's to play certain golf courses. Most courses also offer ladies tees and senior tees for those under 200 yards. Mike Davis and you are trying to fix problems that don't exist for most golf courses.

[jslane57]

One Putt, I see what you did there. But 1600 yards difference is huge. That is like a whole mile of golf course you've got to walk, but not play, in order to play the same piece of property. I think your proof actually shows what a joke it is to have the pros and regular guys so far apart...

[Webby58]

One Putt, I see what you did there. But 1600 yards difference is huge. That is like a whole mile of golf course you've got to walk, but not play, in order to play the same piece of property. I think your proof actually shows what a joke it is to have the pros and regular guys so far apart...

 

That's one of the reasons golf courses have golf carts. I have no shame and enjoy riding

 

It's the guys on the pro tours that have to walk it

[One_Putt_Blunder]

One Putt, I see what you did there. But 1600 yards difference is huge. That is like a whole mile of golf course you've got to walk, but not play, in order to play the same piece of property. I think your proof actually shows what a joke it is to have the pros and regular guys so far apart...

 

A quick scan on google earth shows that the only people seeing that full 1600 yards is those playing the tips and that is marginal at best because not every hole would require a walk back to the tips. This is also using a modern course that was purpose built to host a modern major as an example. In the real world as I mentioned early on in this thread. There is no reason to build a course 7300+ unless you are at elevation or have legit intentions on hosting upper echelon tournaments State/College/MiniTour/Pro/National Am etc.

 

 

Edit: Erin Hills is a walking facility and designed with the walker in mind. If you throw in the ability to take a cart, length has even less impact. Just look at all the god awful 90's real estate routings with 100's of yards between green and tee's

[tannyhoban]

The point here is thanks to technology, ie Trackman, Flight Scope we are better able to understand what the optimal flight condition for a golf ball. As a result the manufacturers can better design golf balls and golf clubs to meet these conditions. As a result of this technology we can better understand how to swing the golf club to create these conditions. As a result the game evolves and improves. Professional golfers are now taking fitness more seriously and training to become better athletes. So now what? Is the USGA going to make working out illegal. heaven forbid pro golfers become well trained athletes and as a result hit the ball farther. What is so wrong with golf evolving, equipment improving and golfers actually become athletes. Like I said before it's the 21st century

 

 

I think you make some great points and I don't want anyone to think I am against improving the game and golfers maximizing their athleticism. But I think its a valid analogy to compare golf courses to other sports venues. They still use 400-450 foot baseball fields. 100 yard football fields, basketball goals are still 10ft. But the golf courses keep getting longer. Can anybody argue that althletes in the the big 3 today are not better trained than in earlier generations? Why are we not playing on 800 foot baseball fields, why isn't the goal 15 feet, or the football field 200 yards? Something must be going on thats not happening in golf.

Exactly. The difference is the big 3 as you call them don't use technology that is any different than it has been for generations. Baseball bats still wooden. Football is a football. Basketball is a basketball. The advancements in these sports are human driven, not equipment driven. Of course there would have been improvements from generation to generation in golf even if the equipment had not been so altered, but it surely wouldn't be were it is today. I'd argue that the modern helmet is a huge contributing factor for the mass number of concussions in football today, but that's another debate...

Do you actually watch these sports? Cuz they sure as hell didn't have a 3 point line, wet fans, oxygen or the helmets they do now. And modern baseball stadiums have trended to shorter lines....

 

All of them have changed.

 

But that has nothing to do with Mike Davis and his regressive bent now that its 20 years beyond...nobody put a gun to courses heads and said lengthen them. Either membership or ownership gets butt hurt and does the prideful and wasteful knee jerk "gotta lengthen the course"....

 

Every time golf decides it needs to do something, it does the wrong thing.