Rolling back the ball

[Wesquire]

Weequire-

 

 

 

You are missing my point. The ball plus the modern Driver is keeping them in competition. At the am level and the pro level.

 

The other people on your side are saying the opposite.

 

I can't speak for anyone but me. I play against it. I see it. A guy hitting a traditional loft 7 iron 140 yards shouldn't be able fly a driver 250. But there all over.

 

That doesn't seem off at all to me. I fly my driver over 300 and my 7i would be about 165-170 with traditional lofts.

 

 

If you average 300 in the air with Driver you should hit a 7 iron 180-190.

 

Nah. Most people hit their irons too far. With a 300y drive you should only be hitting PW around 135 to maintain good gapping. I always laugh when the guys I outdrive by 50y hit their short irons longer than I do. Then they have 5y gaps in their long irons.

[Wesquire]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

 

I don't believe that number, but that's beside the point.

 

"Golf Central | Feb 24, 2018

Duval: Tiger's post-fusion swing speed is shocking

David Duval and Brandel Chamblee discuss Tiger Woods' swing speed, which was clocked over 124mph at the Honda Classic."

 

Again, I don't believe it. Just like I don't believe any of the distances or club selections they say on TV. Every time I've used google earth to check their distances, they are lies.

[Steele47]

No matter which side of argument you're on, I think it would be way cool to watch them hit a wound ball, or maybe even some Spalding Tour Edition's lol... If they did it as some sort of experiment. I'd definitely tune in to watch that.

[torrejuan]

Is anyone looking at scores? Who cares how far they hit the ball if the scoring hasn't changed. Could not have been much over the last 20 years. I'd say slow down the grass- fwy & greens.

[bladehunter]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

 

I don't believe that number, but that's beside the point.

 

"Golf Central | Feb 24, 2018

Duval: Tiger's post-fusion swing speed is shocking

David Duval and Brandel Chamblee discuss Tiger Woods' swing speed, which was clocked over 124mph at the Honda Classic."

 

Again, I don't believe it. Just like I don't believe any of the distances or club selections they say on TV. Every time I've used google earth to check their distances, they are lies.

 

So there distance is lies and yours is exact gospel ?

 

How much sense does that make ? Tiger has been clocked over 130 before. Why is impossible for 124 today ? Phil was clocked 120 plus last week.

[Wesquire]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

 

I don't believe that number, but that's beside the point.

 

"Golf Central | Feb 24, 2018

Duval: Tiger's post-fusion swing speed is shocking

David Duval and Brandel Chamblee discuss Tiger Woods' swing speed, which was clocked over 124mph at the Honda Classic."

 

Again, I don't believe it. Just like I don't believe any of the distances or club selections they say on TV. Every time I've used google earth to check their distances, they are lies.

 

So there distance is lies and yours is exact gospel ?

 

How much sense does that make ? Tiger has been clocked over 130 before. Why is impossible for 124 today ? Phil was clocked 120 plus last week.

 

I know how mine was measured.

 

I've never seen a reliable account of Tiger being over 130. 124 would be on the extreme side of believable. But, they are saying he was at 128.42 today. His highest ever between 2007 and now was 127 in 2007. It is not trustworthy.

 

BTW that's also higher than DJ has ever been recorded.

[crazygolfnut]

The main reasons

1. Better clubs
   
2. Better course conditions
   
3. Better physical conditioning of the player
   
4. Better balls
   

Why not look at all instead of picking on just one item? :swoon2:

[Uhit]

Uhit-

 

equipment worked just fine in years past for beginners. It's just that we now know here's an easier way. Don't pretend as if a beginner couldn't learn to play now with a small driver and a blade. It was done for ever before 1990. I'm not at all advocating for a roll back that far. Just using that date as an example to prove the point. The game isn't being grown by equipment. It's not growing or declining any faster now than ever. Although there are some artificial attempts ( see drunken fan threads ) to grow the game. They aren't growing anything except sponsors wallets.

 

The game grew considerably during the Tiger era...

 

...fueled by his long drives.

 

-

 

Beginners don't want to see how you are putting, but how far you can hit the ball.

 

Like it or not - a inherent part of the game golf, is distance,

and it is fun to watch a long and high ball flight.

[bladehunter]

I can go partially with the “ tiger may not be at 128 today check your trackman “ statement. But to blanket it out to “ I’ve nwver trusted tv distances of club choices. They are all liArs “ is impossible to believe. Nobody is calculating a lie everytime they say “ Bubba from 190 with a 7 iron. “. Do they miss a club sometimes? Yes. But for the most part it’s accurate.

[Sean2]

After watching the Honda for the last three days, they definitely need to dial back the ball. I mean c'mon...look at those scores! :-)

[Wesquire]

I can go partially with the " tiger may not be at 128 today check your trackman " statement. But to blanket it out to " I've nwver trusted tv distances of club choices. They are all liArs " is impossible to believe. Nobody is calculating a lie everytime they say " Bubba from 190 with a 7 iron. ". Do they miss a club sometimes? Yes. But for the most part it's accurate.

 

I'm not saying it is all lies. I just don't trust them. The times that I've been skeptical enough to check it vs gps, the TV numbers were off.

 

But you see what I'm saying about the 128 number, right? That's just nonsense. He isn't ~6mph faster than DJ out of nowhere.

 

And as far as trackman goes, where is the unit located for these readings? Why are the trackman graphics so frequently wrong? It shows the ball landing in the wrong spot all the time. I'm guessing it isn't the real "trackman" unit. Remember when Rory was hitting those 330 yard carry 3 woods on the practice range?

[dave5405]

Just change par. It’s an artificial made up number and varies from course to course and for pros/ams/ladies as it is. With the distances the pros hit it they should rarely have a par five.

[Nard_S]

 

 

 

 

So do you think jack could hit it 400 in the air with today's equipment ? Or do you think dj could hit it 341 with persimmon and a crappy ball ?

 

 

 

More and more I'm getting to the camp of folks who say make the courses harder. And maybe shorter. Like the Honda. It's not so much long drives I mind. It's the lack of shot shaping ability today's player has. Give them a little wind and no bailout andsome of them are pooping their pants and letting a 42 year old who hasn't played in years show them how to hit a "shot". Pretty sad how dumbed down the game is now and makes me sad at how much more I'm enjoying this Tournament vs something like the waste management.

 

I'm in the camp that the taming of spin via modern ball and Driver has changed the calculus of the game and not always in a bad way but not always in a good one either. Shot making was requirement because the ball simply did not fly straight due to inferior design and more importantly poorer aerodynamics. If course conditions are right or it's right design it's still good, see Riviera and Honda but all too often, greens are soft, rough is benign and wind is low and we get Driver/wedge boar fest. On top of that epic layouts like Augusta or St. Andrews are on losing end. New tee boxes does not fix this. I'm more in agreement with Greg Norman on this than Jack. Ball is part of it but size and COR of Driver need adjustment at and only at the Tour level.

 

BTW, Jack, Arnie and Hogan could hit it 340-350, no doubt DJ could do it too with old stuff. Could Jack in his prime hit as far as DJ w/ new stuff. Absolutely, so could have Norman who was probably the best persimmon striker ever.

[Nard_S]

I can go partially with the " tiger may not be at 128 today check your trackman " statement. But to blanket it out to " I've nwver trusted tv distances of club choices. They are all liArs " is impossible to believe. Nobody is calculating a lie everytime they say " Bubba from 190 with a 7 iron. ". Do they miss a club sometimes? Yes. But for the most part it's accurate.

 

I'm not saying it is all lies. I just don't trust them. The times that I've been skeptical enough to check it vs gps, the TV numbers were off.

 

But you see what I'm saying about the 128 number, right? That's just nonsense. He isn't ~6mph faster than DJ out of nowhere.

 

And as far as trackman goes, where is the unit located for these readings? Why are the trackman graphics so frequently wrong? It shows the ball landing in the wrong spot all the time. I'm guessing it isn't the real "trackman" unit. Remember when Rory was hitting those 330 yard carry 3 woods on the practice range?

I can go partially with the " tiger may not be at 128 today check your trackman " statement. But to blanket it out to " I've nwver trusted tv distances of club choices. They are all liArs " is impossible to believe. Nobody is calculating a lie everytime they say " Bubba from 190 with a 7 iron. ". Do they miss a club sometimes? Yes. But for the most part it's accurate.

 

I'm not saying it is all lies. I just don't trust them. The times that I've been skeptical enough to check it vs gps, the TV numbers were off.

 

But you see what I'm saying about the 128 number, right? That's just nonsense. He isn't ~6mph faster than DJ out of nowhere.

 

And as far as trackman goes, where is the unit located for these readings? Why are the trackman graphics so frequently wrong? It shows the ball landing in the wrong spot all the time. I'm guessing it isn't the real "trackman" unit. Remember when Rory was hitting those 330 yard carry 3 woods on the practice range?

 

The guy used to hit a steel shafted (X 100) King Cobra steel head over 350 yards, so these are not all that crazy of numbers.

[Wesquire]

I can go partially with the " tiger may not be at 128 today check your trackman " statement. But to blanket it out to " I've nwver trusted tv distances of club choices. They are all liArs " is impossible to believe. Nobody is calculating a lie everytime they say " Bubba from 190 with a 7 iron. ". Do they miss a club sometimes? Yes. But for the most part it's accurate.

 

I'm not saying it is all lies. I just don't trust them. The times that I've been skeptical enough to check it vs gps, the TV numbers were off.

 

But you see what I'm saying about the 128 number, right? That's just nonsense. He isn't ~6mph faster than DJ out of nowhere.

 

And as far as trackman goes, where is the unit located for these readings? Why are the trackman graphics so frequently wrong? It shows the ball landing in the wrong spot all the time. I'm guessing it isn't the real "trackman" unit. Remember when Rory was hitting those 330 yard carry 3 woods on the practice range?

I can go partially with the " tiger may not be at 128 today check your trackman " statement. But to blanket it out to " I've nwver trusted tv distances of club choices. They are all liArs " is impossible to believe. Nobody is calculating a lie everytime they say " Bubba from 190 with a 7 iron. ". Do they miss a club sometimes? Yes. But for the most part it's accurate.

 

I'm not saying it is all lies. I just don't trust them. The times that I've been skeptical enough to check it vs gps, the TV numbers were off.

 

But you see what I'm saying about the 128 number, right? That's just nonsense. He isn't ~6mph faster than DJ out of nowhere.

 

And as far as trackman goes, where is the unit located for these readings? Why are the trackman graphics so frequently wrong? It shows the ball landing in the wrong spot all the time. I'm guessing it isn't the real "trackman" unit. Remember when Rory was hitting those 330 yard carry 3 woods on the practice range?

 

The guy used to hit a steel shafted (X 100) King Cobra steel head over 350 yards, so these are not all that crazy of numbers.

 

It is when he never hit 128 from 2007 until today. He has been about a 120 mph swinger for a solid 15 years now.

[tannyhoban]

Let's get this straight: nobody is "only concerned about the long hitters." Unless we agree (and I might!) that the entire field at a men's Tour event, or a men's NCAA event, are all "long hitters."

 

This is not about punishing, or favoring, any one group of elite players. It is not about trying to skew any part of elite men's golf events toward any particular competitive result. It isn't about anybody's competitive advantage.

 

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Yet another bs move by the USGA. Full stop.

[15th Club]

The main reasons

1. Better clubs
   
2. Better course conditions
   
3. Better physical conditioning of the player
   
4. Better balls
   

Why not look at all instead of picking on just one item? :swoon2:

1. "Better clubs": People -- recreational players -- have large (for them) investments in their golf clubs. Any rollback, or modification in specifications for, golf clubs would have to be done far too gradually. And really, a forged Mizuno iron with a Dynamic Gold steel shaft is no great leap in technology. As for drivers, woods and hybrids, I have a lot of sympathy for the working class guy who just bought a new driver for $300 or $400. I don't want the rules to screw that guy. I will say that I am disappointed that Frank Thomas told the USGA back around 1999 or 2000 to not worry about driver head sizes. They should have capped it much earlier.
   
2. "Better course conditions": So count me as someone who pretty much loves "better course conditions." Good firm smooth fast greens. Racy fairways that make you think about the roll and angles into the green. Firm green complexes that make you play a variety of approaches. Links golf. I'm not sure what could be bad about better course conditions. If you mean fairways that roll too much, I never think of that as much of a problem. It brings more thought into the game, to take care with roll and your knowledge of how fairways bounce. It's all good to me.
   
3. "Better conditioning of the players": Nothing much needs to be said here. We aren't going to regulate, or discourage, "fitness." But this raises an interesting notion. Because I'm not so much looking for anything to "blame." I don't feel much need, to parse out the discrete effects of fitness versus technology in the golf ball distance debate. The fact is, we keep having to alter our great historic championship courses, to keep them relevant. It doesn't much matter what the cause it. And certainly not if it is something that is beyond regulation, like "fitness."
   
4. "Better golf balls": I've said it earlier; who cares about golf ball regulations? Who cares about golf balls? I don't invest in them; I haven't stockpiled any significant number of golf balls. They are fungible, like replacing golf gloves or spikes in my shoes. Balls are the cheapest, most easily replaced, most unmemorable parts of the game of golf.
   

[Man_O_War]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

 

I don't believe that number, but that's beside the point.

 

Lol. He carried one yesterday 314 on the fly. Do the math.

 

I've carried one 360+ before. Do the math. 128 is significantly faster than he has been clocked at since 2007. I don't believe it.

 

i don't believe you have carried ball 360+ yards..

 

I lean towards believing Tiger's speed because i have seen him play on tv

[tannyhoban]

The main reasons

1. Better clubs
   
2. Better course conditions
   
3. Better physical conditioning of the player
   
4. Better balls
   

Why not look at all instead of picking on just one item? :swoon2:

1. "Better clubs": People -- recreational players -- have large (for them) investments in their golf clubs. Any rollback, or modification in specifications for, golf clubs would have to be done far too gradually. And really, a forged Mizuno iron with a Dynamic Gold steel shaft is no great leap in technology. As for drivers, woods and hybrids, I have a lot of sympathy for the working class guy who just bought a new driver for $300 or $400. I don't want the rules to screw that guy. I will say that I am disappointed that Frank Thomas told the USGA back around 1999 or 2000 to not worry about driver head sizes. They should have capped it much earlier.
   
2. "Better course conditions": So count me as someone who pretty much loves "better course conditions." Good firm smooth fast greens. Racy fairways that make you think about the roll and angles into the green. Firm green complexes that make you play a variety of approaches. Links golf. I'm not sure what could be bad about better course conditions. If you mean fairways that roll too much, I never think of that as much of a problem. It brings more thought into the game, to take care with roll and your knowledge of how fairways bounce. It's all good to me.
   
3. "Better conditioning of the players": Nothing much needs to be said here. We aren't going to regulate, or discourage, "fitness." But this raises an interesting notion. Because I'm not so much looking for anything to "blame." I don't feel much need, to parse out the discrete effects of fitness versus technology in the golf ball distance debate. The fact is, we keep having to alter our great historic championship courses, to keep them relevant. It doesn't much matter what the cause it. And certainly not if it is something that is beyond regulation, like "fitness."
   
4. "Better golf balls": I've said it earlier; who cares about golf ball regulations? Who cares about golf balls? I don't invest in them; I haven't stockpiled any significant number of golf balls. They are fungible, like replacing golf gloves or spikes in my shoes. Balls are the cheapest, most easily replaced, most unmemorable parts of the game of golf.
   

 

And what the hell does any of this drivel mean? Nothing, thats what.

[Nard_S]

Tiger had major knee problem pre-dating 2007. Back issues were supposedly in last 4-5 years but who really knows. He probably had issues going back further than that. Guy's been in some state of pain for 10-12 years. Explains drop off easily.

[Wesquire]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

 

I don't believe that number, but that's beside the point.

 

Lol. He carried one yesterday 314 on the fly. Do the math.

 

I've carried one 360+ before. Do the math. 128 is significantly faster than he has been clocked at since 2007. I don't believe it.

 

i don't believe you have carried ball 360+ yards..

 

I lean towards believing Tiger's speed because i have seen him play on tv

 

That's fine. That was also downhill and downwind. Just saying you can't go off one shot.

 

You've also seen DJ, is Tiger hitting it further than DJ? He should be ~15y longer than DJ with a 128mph swing speed.

[Wesquire]

Tiger had major knee problem pre-dating 2007. Back issues were supposedly in last 4-5 years but who really knows. He probably had issues going back further than that. Guy's been in some state of pain for 10-12 years. Explains drop off easily.

 

So you think post-spinal fusion 42 year old Tiger should be faster than his prime? K.

[jus711]

No he wouldn’t be 15 yards longer than DJ with 128 speed, there are a lot of variables, on the hole he reached 128 on today the 3rd he was only 6 yards past Dufner at 282 vs 288. Hole was in to the wind and he hit a big cut and probably down on it which produces a higher club speed. I can buy that maybe they had a fast radar on the hole this week but then everyone’s numbers would be inflated we’ll see. He’s definitely swinging faster than he was at Riviera last week and that was 119 which is stout in its own right. Tiger was generally 125club/185ball in the aughts whenever they tested and that was slower than he was in the 90s. He’s just extremely talented with natural high speed, ball speed and efficiency and launch conditions are more important that raw clubhead speed anyway, but it’s impressive to see he still has that speed in the tank.

[bladehunter]

The main reasons

1. Better clubs
   
2. Better course conditions
   
3. Better physical conditioning of the player
   
4. Better balls
   

Why not look at all instead of picking on just one item? :swoon2:

1. "Better clubs": People -- recreational players -- have large (for them) investments in their golf clubs. Any rollback, or modification in specifications for, golf clubs would have to be done far too gradually. And really, a forged Mizuno iron with a Dynamic Gold steel shaft is no great leap in technology. As for drivers, woods and hybrids, I have a lot of sympathy for the working class guy who just bought a new driver for $300 or $400. I don't want the rules to screw that guy. I will say that I am disappointed that Frank Thomas told the USGA back around 1999 or 2000 to not worry about driver head sizes. They should have capped it much earlier.
   
2. "Better course conditions": So count me as someone who pretty much loves "better course conditions." Good firm smooth fast greens. Racy fairways that make you think about the roll and angles into the green. Firm green complexes that make you play a variety of approaches. Links golf. I'm not sure what could be bad about better course conditions. If you mean fairways that roll too much, I never think of that as much of a problem. It brings more thought into the game, to take care with roll and your knowledge of how fairways bounce. It's all good to me.
   
3. "Better conditioning of the players": Nothing much needs to be said here. We aren't going to regulate, or discourage, "fitness." But this raises an interesting notion. Because I'm not so much looking for anything to "blame." I don't feel much need, to parse out the discrete effects of fitness versus technology in the golf ball distance debate. The fact is, we keep having to alter our great historic championship courses, to keep them relevant. It doesn't much matter what the cause it. And certainly not if it is something that is beyond regulation, like "fitness."
   
4. "Better golf balls": I've said it earlier; who cares about golf ball regulations? Who cares about golf balls? I don't invest in them; I haven't stockpiled any significant number of golf balls. They are fungible, like replacing golf gloves or spikes in my shoes. Balls are the cheapest, most easily replaced, most unmemorable parts of the game of golf.
   

 

 

 

agree 100%

[jus711]

By the way he was consistently hitting 125/126 when he was testing clubs back in January according to this article so 128 doesn’t seem crazy. https://www.pgatour.com/news/2018/01/22/tiger-woods-taylormade-testing-session.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

[Wesquire]

By the way he was consistently hitting 125/126 when he was testing clubs back in January according to this article so 128 doesn’t seem crazy. https://www.pgatour.com/news/2018/01/22/tiger-woods-taylormade-testing-session.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

And only 181 ball speed. Unless he is mishitting every one, he's at more like 121 club speed.

[Shilgy]

 

BTW, Jack, Arnie and Hogan could hit it 340-350, no doubt DJ could do it too with old stuff. Could Jack in his prime hit as far as DJ w/ new stuff. Absolutely, so could have Norman who was probably the best persimmon striker ever.

They could hit it that far if they hit it with extreme downwind. And maybe a bit of cart path. Or are you saying they could hit it 340+ but chose to bunt it out there 250-260. Seems odd the proclaimed best ball striker of all time would need to take almost a hundred yards off tee shots to keep it in the fairway.

[jus711]

You’re assuming optimal smash factor though, but I agree there’s some variance in track man data, and perhaps the swing speed numbers are off a couple of mph. He’s 2nd in the field in driving distance this week, he’s definitely moving it no matter what the actual speed is. He was clocked at 184 ball speed on 10 yesterday.

[jus711]

And again there’s efficiency, Sergio and Stenson both swing 120 and their ball speeds are always in the mid 170s, even though they’re two of the best ball strikers on tour but they hit down on it. Conversely Justin Thomas swings in the mid to high 1 teens and he’s 180 ball speed and top 10 distance on tour, because he hits up.

[jus711]

https://rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/golfequipment/bombyourdriver/tiger-woods-inefficient-driver

 

In the May 16th, 2008 issue of GolfWorld, Tiger Wood's driving vitals were published and they revealed that he ranked 205th out of 207 in Total Driving Efficiency, a ratio of ball speed to distance. Tiger has the highest average clubhead speed measured by TrackMan on tour at 124.6 miles per hour and the highest ball speed as well at 182.69 mph. This equates to an average of about 1.47 Smash Factor, or the ratio between clubhead speed and ball speed.

 

This is very efficient, showing that Tiger hits the sweetspot more often then not with the driver with a pretty square face. Those numbers are very solid, however, the problem shows up when you look at his average launch angle and spin rate. His launch angle is very low at 7.96° while his spin is very high at 3,118 rpms.

 

According to Trajectoware, this would give him a dynamic loft of around 9.1° which means one of three things assuming Tiger's driver has 8.5° of loft as stated.

 

First, it means that he has a negative angle of attack (which he does) and the shaft bends forward at impact. Second, it could mean that he hits the ball above the center of the face where there is more loft with a very negative angle of attack. Third, it could mean that he has a level angle of attack and the shaft bends forward slightly and he hits it slightly above the sweetspot. Fourth, it could be a combination of all these!

 

Long story short, Tiger's AoA has been measured to be very negative so working with that assumption, we have to assume that his shaft is bending forward a fair amount at impact and he is hitting it slightly above the center of the face.

 

This would coincide with his recent testing of the Matrix F7M2 LTD (the same shaft I play while having 8 mph LESS clubhead speed on average than Tiger) and he didn't use it because it didn't spin enough.

 

In other words, he didn't get enough tip deflection to put enough loft on the club at impact to produce enough spin to keep the ball in the air for optimum distance. Because Tiger's angle of attack is too negative compared to the positive angle of attack I recommend in my Optimum Launch Angle video, he is simply throwing away massive yardage gains off the tee.