When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[nix]

i would love to see the tour roll back the ball.

[Shilgy]

Anyone that liked the HT ball is ok with me.

 

Never saw one from Bridgestone, the Strata was a good ball but was way behind the Pro V1 in distance, it spun so much. A friend of mine was given about 12 dozen of them about a month before we got the V1. I think he still has them.

 

I always though the Revolution was the first to market.

 

I still have some HT-100s lying around. I bought several dozen from ebay, NIB, several years ago, the urethane cover versions. Then found some "genuine" balata HT-100s, which appeared to be Asian market, and pretty new. The urethane HT were a ton more durable than the asian market balatas, LOL.

 

I thought i still had two or three dozen, based on usage, but can only find one box of them. :(

 

I'm pretty sure the Strata was the first. The early Stratas may have been hyper spinny and short (no idea myself), but by the time they got to the Strata Tour Pro, they were fairly decent IMHO. Ball tests from around the solid core revolution (no pun intended) showed they were fairly similar. The Pro V1 was even a bit spinnier off a 7 iron than the Strata Tour Pro. If Spalding had the money, they could have made a serious dent in the market in the 90s.

 

But they didn't, and they didn't. <shrug>

 

The original Rev ball *was* a bit of a spinner (have a sleeve of them, also). The A10 and M3 Red/Black were better that way. Or the Slazenger Players. :)

 

The earliest balltest I remember had the Tour Balata, the Maxfli Elite, and even the Hogan Balata. Great fun. :)

IIRC the Maxfli DDH-HT100 (Balata DUNLOP on the side) was the earlier Japan balata version. I played them in '92. The Maxfli HT-100(Tour Balata 332 on the side) was also balata and made in Japan.** The Maxfli HT (with Urethane 100) on the side was made in the South Carolina plant.

 

**Not sure if the tour balata 332 was made in Japan or South Carolina. Pretty sure all of the South Carolina product were the urethane version.

 

That said the current balls are much better from the durability standpoint-and always round! The only thing I miss about the old was the spin around the greens.

[Bye]

Anyone that liked the HT ball is ok with me.

 

Never saw one from Bridgestone, the Strata was a good ball but was way behind the Pro V1 in distance, it spun so much. A friend of mine was given about 12 dozen of them about a month before we got the V1. I think he still has them.

 

I always though the Revolution was the first to market.

 

I still have some HT-100s lying around. I bought several dozen from ebay, NIB, several years ago, the urethane cover versions. Then found some "genuine" balata HT-100s, which appeared to be Asian market, and pretty new. The urethane HT were a ton more durable than the asian market balatas, LOL.

 

I thought i still had two or three dozen, based on usage, but can only find one box of them. :(

 

I'm pretty sure the Strata was the first. The early Stratas may have been hyper spinny and short (no idea myself), but by the time they got to the Strata Tour Pro, they were fairly decent IMHO. Ball tests from around the solid core revolution (no pun intended) showed they were fairly similar. The Pro V1 was even a bit spinnier off a 7 iron than the Strata Tour Pro. If Spalding had the money, they could have made a serious dent in the market in the 90s.

 

But they didn't, and they didn't. <shrug>

 

The original Rev ball *was* a bit of a spinner (have a sleeve of them, also). The A10 and M3 Red/Black were better that way. Or the Slazenger Players. :)

 

The earliest balltest I remember had the Tour Balata, the Maxfli Elite, and even the Hogan Balata. Great fun. :)

IIRC the Maxfli DDH-HT100 (Balata DUNLOP on the side) was the earlier Japan balata version. I played them in '92. The Maxfli HT-100(Tour Balata 332 on the side) was also balata and made in Japan.** The Maxfli HT (with Urethane 100) on the side was made in the South Carolina plant.

 

**Not sure if the tour balata 332 was made in Japan or South Carolina. Pretty sure all of the South Carolina product were the urethane version.

 

That said the current balls are much better from the durability standpoint-and always round! The only thing I miss about the old was the spin around the greens.

 

Yes they were square by the end of the round.

 

NRJyzr - I stand corrected, the Strata was before the Revolution, I didn't see the early ones.

 

 

 

 

[Uhit]

i would love to see the tour roll back the ball.

 

I would love, if every wish would be for the better...

[North Butte]

The real master stroke was Titleist creating a ball that every can use if they really want to. Distance balls don't really exist anymore, only in name.

 

I do think Titleist may have gotten there first, at least among the ball I've tried.

 

Circa 2010-2012, balls like the Lethal or some of the pre-Chrome Soft Callaways or the early iterations of the B330 line did seem to lack a bit of height and carry relative to some "distance" balls with my anemic clubhead speed. Nothing major but there were a few yards and some extra trajectory to be found if I wanted to give up tons of approach-shot and greenside control in return.

 

By the time that 2013 ProV1/ProV1x rolled out, Titleist had the whole thing sussed out. That ball was the first Tour ball I'd ever seen where I could not find any possible way to say there was a trade off. It had amazing short-game spin, would stop mid-iron shots on a dime and was as long as anything on the market (for my 90mph driver swing).

 

Now there's good-performing Tour balls like that from all the makers. A B330 or a Chrome Soft or a Z-Star or the newer Titleists are all like that 2013 ProV1. Your handicap, clubhead speed, etc. matter not at all. If you want a ball that flies long and high then spins when it hits the ground you're covered.

 

Oh good lord.... /rolleyes

 

Titleist did not create anything. There were at least two manufacturers there ahead of them, who put out solid core balls that weren't based on IP infringement.

 

Let's not ruin this thread further with worship services for the Church of Titleist...

 

What?

 

I said Titleist is 2013 was the first to make a Tour ball that worked perfectly for my game with no compromise at all in distance, trajectory and playability relative to distance balls.

 

And I gave specific examples of the Tour balls I was using prior to 2013 that I thought did entail a slight compromise on those characteristics, to my game.

 

And I said that since approximately 2013 it has been my experience that the Tour balls from all makers seem to suit my game just as well as the 2013 (and 2015 and 2017) Titleist.

 

I made no statement in this thread about ancient history of multi piece Urethane balls. But in numerous other threads I hate pointed out that Titleist circa Y2K was late to the party relative to certain other makers.

 

But yeah, aside from not reading anything I actually wrote you make a good point...

 

 

[bladehunter]

i would love to see the tour roll back the ball.

 

I would love, if every wish would be for the better...

 

Opinions being what they are and all. The better of whom ?

[Bye]

I still think one of the Tours should host an event with a driver ban.

[Equipto]

Should we all just drive the ford model T? At the end of the day manufacturers that’s brings products to market are going to do their best to provide the best products for everyone, because that’s how they make money.

 

Now in the car example, we have laws like speed limits that curb how we can use those products. But there are racing organizations that allow those cars aka tools to be used with the best tech available (with a few safety regulations)

 

In golf, I don’t believe this is necessary because 1) you probably won’t kill anybody and 2) its a game of skill. Pick your tool and do your best.

[augustgolf]

Renovating my simulator room right now, you can never go to far. Taking out the adjacent wall to make it twice the size. There's never enough when it comes to golf.

See...the ball has even outdated your Sim room. Distance kills

[rawdog]

I embrace club/ball advancement, and look forward to trying/testing them out. It's part of why I play golf.

 

But I learned through other threads that clubs haven't improved, while the ball has improved too much...

 

Oh, and not to EVER wear a hat indoors.

 

Or jeans on the golf course. :-)

 

I don't even own jeans, honestly.

 

Not because I'm a snob, but because I look stupid in them.

[A.Princey]

I don't think the ball should be rolled back crazy far, perhaps just slightly. At the very least I think the ball needs to be limited to exactly where it stands today though. There needs to be a test of the current ball characteristics and an elasticity/spin quotient formed, much like COR with clubs, that defines the maximum limit for any further generations of ball releases. Basically, no more iterations from Titleist, TM, Srixon etc that surpass anything out there currently.

 

As a ball producing company this would be a hard blow because unlike clubs, its hard to change a balls appearance and make it stand out once a similar limit to COR is placed on it's construction. Eventually, every major golf ball brand would have a ball equal to the next brand, and dimples and whatnot would rule the marketing world.

 

We've adapted to the current ball, let's not go back to balata. I don't want to relearn a game that's taken my entire adult life to adjust to already. Obviously ball speed isn't the only limiting factor on distance cause it's pretty set a 1.5 times clubhead speed, so spin and aerodynamics of the ball have to be changed to keep it from getting any longer. Maybe make it a 1/32" wider diameter, I don't know. All I know is that I measure myself against the best by playing to the same set of rules, I'm not going to be out there playing a rigged game with a better ball than they use. After all, we're all humans, playing the same game with the same set of rules. If I wanted an advantage, I'd play the senior tees....

[augustgolf]

Dimples did rule the golf marketing world even back in the 70's. Do a little research

[NRJyzr]

I don't think the ball should be rolled back crazy far, perhaps just slightly. At the very least I think the ball needs to be limited to exactly where it stands today though. There needs to be a test of the current ball characteristics and an elasticity/spin quotient formed, much like COR with clubs, that defines the maximum limit for any further generations of ball releases. Basically, no more iterations from Titleist, TM, Srixon etc that surpass anything out there currently.

 

As a ball producing company this would be a hard blow because unlike clubs, its hard to change a balls appearance and make it stand out once a similar limit to COR is placed on it's construction. Eventually, every major golf ball brand would have a ball equal to the next brand, and dimples and whatnot would rule the marketing world.

 

We've adapted to the current ball, let's not go back to balata. I don't want to relearn a game that's taken my entire adult life to adjust to already. Obviously ball speed isn't the only limiting factor on distance cause it's pretty set a 1.5 times clubhead speed, so spin and aerodynamics of the ball have to be changed to keep it from getting any longer. Maybe make it a 1/32" wider diameter, I don't know. All I know is that I measure myself against the best by playing to the same set of rules, I'm not going to be out there playing a rigged game with a better ball than they use. After all, we're all humans, playing the same game with the same set of rules. If I wanted an advantage, I'd play the senior tees....

 

 

The ball has already been rolled back. When the ODS was switched from the 108mph or 109mph test to using a club at 120mph, the new distance limit results in fewer yards per mph than does the old limit.

 

On top of that, they switched from using a wood club to a modern Ti driver. Relative COR being what they are, there's another few yards fewer the ball can travel.

 

It's been done once, there's no need to do it again only because no one noticed.

[nix]

Should we all just drive the ford model T? At the end of the day manufacturers that’s brings products to market are going to do their best to provide the best products for everyone, because that’s how they make money.

 

Now in the car example, we have laws like speed limits that curb how we can use those products. But there are racing organizations that allow those cars aka tools to be used with the best tech available (with a few safety regulations)

 

In golf, I don’t believe this is necessary because 1) you probably won’t kill anybody and 2) its a game of skill. Pick your tool and do your best.

 

I can't imagine that you follow any kind of car racing based on this post.

 

Should baseball use titanium bats and rubber balls?

[nix]

There are two options and only 2 options.

1. limit distance the ball can go

2. keep expanding courses to longer and longer lengths

 

I vote for 1, but if you don't vote for 1 you vote for 2. That's the nature of the issue.

[pinestreetgolf]

There are two options and only 2 options.

1. limit distance the ball can go

2. keep expanding courses to longer and longer lengths

 

I vote for 1, but if you don't vote for 1 you vote for 2. That's the nature of the issue.

 

Nonsense. There is another option.

 

3. Have the winning scores get lower and lower.

 

Every single other sport has chosen this option (football average points, basketball average points, etc...). There is a small group of people who care that courses like St. Andrews are won at -15 now. I don't understand their beef, but they exist, and for some reason have this idea that a course shouldn't yield a score that is X below par. Everyone else just appreciates that St. Andrews is an awesome historic course and isn't "obsolete" because the winning score is low, just like football isn't "obsolete" because teams now average 20-ish points a game instead of 11-ish.

 

EDIT

You should be blaming tournament organizers, not the ball or equipment. Merion (which isn't long) was won at what, -1 by Rose? They added 600 yards to Erin Hills and Koepka killed it. If somebody (*cough* Mike Davis *cough*) is out of ideas, maybe he should be replaced and not the ball.

[mahonie]

There are two options and only 2 options.

1. limit distance the ball can go

2. keep expanding courses to longer and longer lengths

 

I vote for 1, but if you don't vote for 1 you vote for 2. That's the nature of the issue.

 

Nonsense. There is another option.

 

3. Have the winning scores get lower and lower.

 

Every single other sport has chosen this option (football average points, basketball average points, etc...). There is a small group of people who care that courses like St. Andrews are won at -15 now. I don't understand their beef, but they exist, and for some reason have this idea that a course shouldn't yield a score that is X below par. Everyone else just appreciates that St. Andrews is an awesome historic course and isn't "obsolete" because the winning score is low, just like football isn't "obsolete" because teams now average 20-ish points a game instead of 11-ish.

 

EDIT

You should be blaming tournament organizers, not the ball or equipment. Merion (which isn't long) was won at what, -1 by Rose? They added 600 yards to Erin Hills and Koepka killed it. If somebody (*cough* Mike Davis *cough*) is out of ideas, maybe he should be replaced and not the ball.

 

Agree with your edit. Courses can be designed to minimise the impact of the long ball and still make tournament golf interesting. Merion, as you point out, and Harbour Town tick that box. Courses that make you position your ball in the right place to make a score and have a good balance of risk-reward holes are entertaining. Courses with holes that are a pushover with wide open fairways, flat greens that hold a 3-wood coming in from 280 yards don’t make for great entertainment. I don’t mind seeing Pros shoot -24 for a tournament (some are +6 cap and it shouldn’t be a surprise if they are on top of their game...although being on top for 4 days in a row is rare) but the conditions have got to be favourable and the Pro is nailing every shot, hitting it close and holing putts.

[pinestreetgolf]

There are two options and only 2 options.

1. limit distance the ball can go

2. keep expanding courses to longer and longer lengths

 

I vote for 1, but if you don't vote for 1 you vote for 2. That's the nature of the issue.

 

Nonsense. There is another option.

 

3. Have the winning scores get lower and lower.

 

Every single other sport has chosen this option (football average points, basketball average points, etc...). There is a small group of people who care that courses like St. Andrews are won at -15 now. I don't understand their beef, but they exist, and for some reason have this idea that a course shouldn't yield a score that is X below par. Everyone else just appreciates that St. Andrews is an awesome historic course and isn't "obsolete" because the winning score is low, just like football isn't "obsolete" because teams now average 20-ish points a game instead of 11-ish.

 

EDIT

You should be blaming tournament organizers, not the ball or equipment. Merion (which isn't long) was won at what, -1 by Rose? They added 600 yards to Erin Hills and Koepka killed it. If somebody (*cough* Mike Davis *cough*) is out of ideas, maybe he should be replaced and not the ball.

 

Agree with your edit. Courses can be designed to minimise the impact of the long ball and still make tournament golf interesting. Merion, as you point out, and Harbour Town tick that box. Courses that make you position your ball in the right place to make a score and have a good balance of risk-reward holes are entertaining. Courses with holes that are a pushover with wide open fairways, flat greens that hold a 3-wood coming in from 280 yards don’t make for great entertainment. I don’t mind seeing Pros shoot -24 for a tournament (some are +6 cap and it shouldn’t be a surprise if they are on top of their game...although being on top for 4 days in a row is rare) but the conditions have got to be favourable and the Pro is nailing every shot, hitting it close and holing putts.

 

I mean this completely in earnest, because I am curious because I don't share your view. Why do you see finesse-ly placing tee shots into the right spots and scoring with position as more impressive / entertaining than smashing a 3 wood 280 yards in the air?

 

I just have the complete opposite view. Hitting a 3 wood like Day is way more impressive, entertaining and rare than thinking your way around a 6800 yard "positional" course IMO. It almost seems like you are dismissing the ability to hit a flat, straight 600 yard par 5 in two as "not real golf" or something like that. Its unreal impressive to have that accuracy at that speed IMO. I want to see more, not less.

 

Ideally, a perfect tournament course would demand both. But if you put out a 630 yard par 5 with easy fairway and easy greens only 20 or so people in the world can hit that in two shots. Don't you think that's part of being good at golf?

[mahonie]

There are two options and only 2 options.

1. limit distance the ball can go

2. keep expanding courses to longer and longer lengths

 

I vote for 1, but if you don't vote for 1 you vote for 2. That's the nature of the issue.

 

Nonsense. There is another option.

 

3. Have the winning scores get lower and lower.

 

Every single other sport has chosen this option (football average points, basketball average points, etc...). There is a small group of people who care that courses like St. Andrews are won at -15 now. I don't understand their beef, but they exist, and for some reason have this idea that a course shouldn't yield a score that is X below par. Everyone else just appreciates that St. Andrews is an awesome historic course and isn't "obsolete" because the winning score is low, just like football isn't "obsolete" because teams now average 20-ish points a game instead of 11-ish.

 

EDIT

You should be blaming tournament organizers, not the ball or equipment. Merion (which isn't long) was won at what, -1 by Rose? They added 600 yards to Erin Hills and Koepka killed it. If somebody (*cough* Mike Davis *cough*) is out of ideas, maybe he should be replaced and not the ball.

 

Agree with your edit. Courses can be designed to minimise the impact of the long ball and still make tournament golf interesting. Merion, as you point out, and Harbour Town tick that box. Courses that make you position your ball in the right place to make a score and have a good balance of risk-reward holes are entertaining. Courses with holes that are a pushover with wide open fairways, flat greens that hold a 3-wood coming in from 280 yards don’t make for great entertainment. I don’t mind seeing Pros shoot -24 for a tournament (some are +6 cap and it shouldn’t be a surprise if they are on top of their game...although being on top for 4 days in a row is rare) but the conditions have got to be favourable and the Pro is nailing every shot, hitting it close and holing putts.

 

I mean this completely in earnest, because I am curious because I don't share your view. Why do you see finesse-ly placing tee shots into the right spots and scoring with position as more impressive / entertaining than smashing a 3 wood 280 yards in the air?

 

I just have the complete opposite view. Hitting a 3 wood like Day is way more impressive, entertaining and rare than thinking your way around a 6800 yard "positional" course IMO. It almost seems like you are dismissing the ability to hit a flat, straight 600 yard par 5 in two as "not real golf" or something like that. Its unreal impressive to have that accuracy at that speed IMO. I want to see more, not less.

 

Just something that Rory said 2 or 3 years ago. Can’t remember which tournament but he hit 3-wood into a par 5, it rolled up close enough for an easy eagle putt and it got his round going. In his interview after, he said that he had mishit the shot but knew he was going have certain birdie anyway so there was absolutely no risk in the shot. The fairway was about 80 yards wide at the point where he hit drive to and he was only just in the fairway...again no challenge. My point is, the courses are set up for these guys and birdies on par fives are really just standard pars and nothing to get excited about. In fact, I am disappointed if they don’t get an eagle and feel a bit short-changed if I’m honest.

[Nard_S]

You want a sober answer as to why the equipment has gone too far?

 

Watch Louis O. on Feherty, a 2 time major winner that explains it as well as anybody has.

[Bye]

Low scoring is not a new phenomenon. Guys like Norman and John Cook etc posted some scary low numbers in the 90's. It was great to see. But they played the holes how they were designed to be play, how boring!

 

 

[pinestreetgolf]

...again no challenge. My point is, the courses are set up for these guys and birdies on par fives are really just standard pars and nothing to get excited about. In fact, I am disappointed if they don’t get an eagle and feel a bit short-changed if I’m honest.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you think its "no challenge", we can't even discuss it. Rory's distance is why he is good. Its like saying making three pointers is easy because Steph Curry exists.

 

The tour average on par 5 scoring is about 4.72. How can you possibly say, given that, that "birdies are just standard" ? Not only are they not standard, they're fairly unusual.

[pinestreetgolf]

Low scoring is not a new phenomenon. Guys like Norman and John Cook etc posted some scary low numbers in the 90's. It was great to see. But they played the holes how they were designed to be play, how boring!

 

Greg Norman was second on tour in driving distance during his hayday, around 284 off the tee, only about 10 yards behind today's biggest hitters (top 30).

 

I'm sure he only played courses as they were designed. He didn't bomb any doglegs. That was 17 years ago he posted those numbers.

 

We can slice and dice it up anyway anyone wants, but golf always has been and always will be a game of speed and distance. Positional players win sometimes, but the dominant players of every single era are dominant because they are long. The idea that Greg Norman was playing positional golf and not bombing his way to titles is silly.

 

Ironically, the shortest guy (Relative to the field) who has had huge success is Spieth, who according to this thread should have no chance.

[mahonie]

...again no challenge. My point is, the courses are set up for these guys and birdies on par fives are really just standard pars and nothing to get excited about. In fact, I am disappointed if they don’t get an eagle and feel a bit short-changed if I’m honest.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you think its "no challenge", we can't even discuss it. Rory's distance is why he is good. Its like saying making three pointers is easy because Steph Curry exists.

 

The tour average on par 5 scoring is about 4.72. How can you possibly say, given that, that "birdies are just standard" ? Not only are they not standard, they're fairly unusual.

 

On the PGA Tour this season to date, there are 266 players who are shooting better than par on par 5s.

[pinestreetgolf]

...again no challenge. My point is, the courses are set up for these guys and birdies on par fives are really just standard pars and nothing to get excited about. In fact, I am disappointed if they don’t get an eagle and feel a bit short-changed if I’m honest.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you think its "no challenge", we can't even discuss it. Rory's distance is why he is good. Its like saying making three pointers is easy because Steph Curry exists.

 

The tour average on par 5 scoring is about 4.72. How can you possibly say, given that, that "birdies are just standard" ? Not only are they not standard, they're fairly unusual.

 

On the PGA Tour this season to date, there are 266 players who are shooting better than par on par 5s.

 

"Better than par" means just below par. That's a far cry from "birdies are standard", which is ridiculous. There isn't a single guy who is within .4 strokes of a birdie average.

[mahonie]

...again no challenge. My point is, the courses are set up for these guys and birdies on par fives are really just standard pars and nothing to get excited about. In fact, I am disappointed if they don’t get an eagle and feel a bit short-changed if I’m honest.

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you think its "no challenge", we can't even discuss it. Rory's distance is why he is good. Its like saying making three pointers is easy because Steph Curry exists.

 

The tour average on par 5 scoring is about 4.72. How can you possibly say, given that, that "birdies are just standard" ? Not only are they not standard, they're fairly unusual.

 

On the PGA Tour this season to date, there are 266 players who are shooting better than par on par 5s.

 

"Better than par" means just below par. That's a far cry from "birdies are standard", which is ridiculous. There isn't a single guy who is within .4 strokes of a birdie average.

 

I’m happy to agree to disagree. For me, it just demonstrates the lack of challenge in modern, wide open, 600+ yard par 5s and a lack of imagination on the part of the designers and those that set the tournaments up.

[Nard_S]

Norman driving it 285 is a feat that is better than it sounds. Lot less tech hitting a ball that did not go as straight. Tiger in '97 was mind blowing compared to anything done today,. King Cobra w/ steel is not an easy club to poke. Put that tech in today's hands and they're not blowing it past 300 as routinely and when they do the down side would be way higher. So yeah, not impressed.

 

To paraphrase Louis O.: "The tech is so good, it's easy to find the fairway over 300."

[Bye]

Low scoring is not a new phenomenon. Guys like Norman and John Cook etc posted some scary low numbers in the 90's. It was great to see. But they played the holes how they were designed to be play, how boring!

 

Greg Norman was second on tour in driving distance during his hayday, around 284 off the tee, only about 10 yards behind today's biggest hitters (top 30).

 

I'm sure he only played courses as they were designed. He didn't bomb any doglegs. That was 17 years ago he posted those numbers.

 

We can slice and dice it up anyway anyone wants, but golf always has been and always will be a game of speed and distance. Positional players win sometimes, but the dominant players of every single era are dominant because they are long. The idea that Greg Norman was playing positional golf and not bombing his way to titles is silly.

 

Ironically, the shortest guy (Relative to the field) who has had huge success is Spieth, who according to this thread should have no chance.

 

There will always be someone who is the longest, that’s fine and not an issue. Yes he was long but he was more than a bomber, like DL III great ball strikers.

 

I had to look, GN averaged 282 in 1991, ( I didn’t go past 1994) he was more like a 277 average which is only 7 yards longer than Jim Furyk in 2017 who was dead last.

 

With the longest hitters averaging 285 they would have more options setting the courses up. Players would be challenged by the hazards as the course designer had intended.

 

 

[Uhit]

Norman driving it 285 is a feat that is better than it sounds. Lot less tech hitting a ball that did not go as straight. Tiger in '97 was mind blowing compared to anything done today,. King Cobra w/ steel is not an easy club to poke. Put that tech in today's hands and they're not blowing it past 300 as routinely and when they do the down side would be way higher. So yeah, not impressed.

 

To paraphrase Louis O.: "The tech is so good, it's easy to find the fairway over 300."

 

This is probably the reason, why he is No.1 since a decade, or so...

...or is he not?

 

Great to know, that tech is so good, that more than 90 percent cant hit it over 300, and more than 50% miss fairways if they hit it over 150.

 

It is dead simple, the farther the ball goes, the precise AND fast you have to be - which is pretty rare, if you consider the total number of golfers worldwide.

 

-

 

Further restricting the distance a ball travels, would not only harm more than 99.9% of the golfers, it would also not help the remaining less than 0.1%.

[North Butte]

So this really is all about what you guys want to see on TV. It’s not a “problem” for golf per se but for the televised entertainment product.

 

That said, do you really think if every Tour golfer started hitting it 30 yards shorter overnight then TV golf ratings would actually improve? Seems a long shot, so to speak.