Is Increasing Driving Distance Ruining the Pro Tours? (***CONTENTS UNDER MOD REVIEW***)

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never throw it above 97 mph.

[Shilgy]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never threw it above 97 mph.

Let's use the same 10%. All above 90 mph will be rolled back. Bartolo Colon is safe.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never threw it above 97 mph.

Let's use the same 10%. All above 90 mph will be rolled back. Bartolo Colon is safe.

 

Not a bad idea, but I think it should be 20%, so guys can't ever hurl it as fast as my childhood idol. While we are at it, get that mound lowered and extended to 80 feet and keep it there after the rollback.

[Roadking2003]

Your viewpoint seems to be based on guys hitting driver / long iron into holes like 13 / 15 at Augusta. I'd be all for that if that's what we routinely saw by big hitters. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the 50+ guys on tour capable of hitting 3-wood / 8-Iron into those holes. To me that's not risk reward, that's ho hum.

 

why do you care what number is on the bottom of the club? It still takes the same skill to hit a green in two shots 510 yards away whether the club says driver/2 iron or 3 wood/8 iron..

[Roadking2003]

Now the consumers are used to the equipment and the players have developed a different way to play the game. Yesterday Dustin Johnson hit 3 wood/8 iron on a 525 yard par 5. That's 125 yards more than Nicklaus would have gotten out of 3 wood/8 iron in the 70's. Better or worse it's a different game that has evolved and you can't just stuff it back in the bottle.

 

So DJ hits 3 wood / 8 iron and Nicklaus hit driver / 2 iron. Both play the same 525 yards. It requires the same skill. The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference.

[Roadking2003]

Higher rough and concrete greens destroy the architectural integrity of the great courses; they are no longer a fair test of skill. If this keeps going they will need to create new ones that take the new style of game into account when testing players fairly.

 

But we have already destroyed the architectural integrity of the great old courses. Like Pinehurst #2. It was designed for green Stimps of 5 - 7, not 12 - 13. That totally changes the course from the original design.

 

You keep making the mistake that a rollback’s purpose is to go back in time, as a sort of historical reenactment. That is untrue.

 

What I want, is better golf. Stimp speeds of 12 and 13 are mostly unnatural, and have been artificially created to defend scoring from golf ball distance. I’d like to see slower green speeds (at least nothing unnatural) along with a ball rollback.

 

So let's roll it all back. Balata balls. Persimmon heads. Wood shafts. Stimps of 5 or 6. Isn't that what the old courses were designed for?

[Roadking2003]

 

Nobody wants “a 1970 ball.” We want an all-new, modern, high-tech, single-spec ball that doesn’t diminish enjoyment of the game by casual recreational golfers. But which much more effectively enforces, in real-life play, the spirit of the current ODS.

 

Why not? Why not have a ball that was in play when the old courses were designed?

[Roadking2003]

Webb Simpson is 145th in driving distance this season. averaging 280 this week. 19 under.

 

I don't think distance is a problem.

 

Distance is not a problem because scoring is not going down. When scores nosedive, then we might have a problem.

[15th Club]

I just don’t understand the preceding several comments. To whom are they addressed? A ball rollback is not intended to prevent the most talented long-hitting players from winning on the Tour. Current golf ball distances are not a problem because Dustin Johnson or Jason Day are succeeding on the Tour; the problem isn’t resolved if Webb Simpson or another “short” hitter is doing well competitively.

 

(In my dreams, I’d love to be as “short” a hitter as Webb Simpson. 290 yards average in tournament play. What is so remarkable, is that a guy averaging 290 yards in driving distance is only 145th on Tour.)

[Shilgy]

I just don’t understand the preceding several comments. To whom are they addressed? A ball rollback is not intended to prevent the most talented long-hitting players from winning on the Tour. Current golf ball distances are not a problem because Dustin Johnson or Jason Day are succeeding on the Tour; the problem isn’t resolved if Webb Simpson or another “short” hitter is doing well competitively.

 

(In my dreams, I’d love to be as “short” a hitter as Webb Simpson. 290 yards average in tournament play. What is so remarkable, is that a guy averaging 290 yards in driving distance is only 145th on Tour.)

Hey! We agree. Webb is not short at 290 average. He is short,however, compared to other the top 500 pro golfers in the world.

 

And, someone with $20 million dollars is not poor. But compared to the 500 richest folks in the world he is a pauper.

[15th Club]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never throw it above 97 mph.

 

Of course, this is a completely moronic comparison. Baseball pitchers are throwing a ball that hasn’t much changed over the decades. If baseball were like modern golf, we’d have private companies pouring tons of money into R&D to design new and farther-flying baseballs.

 

Who understands that better comparison? Mike Davis of the USGA, that’s who!

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-executive-director-says-variable-distance-ball-could-be-part-of-golfs-future

 

Oh by the way; when the pitchers in baseball became too dominant, baseball DID undertake a “rollback” of sorts; they lowered the pitchers’ mound.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never throw it above 97 mph.

 

Of course, this is a completely moronic comparison. Baseball pitchers are throwing a ball that hasn't much changed over the decades. If baseball were like modern golf, we'd have private companies pouring tons of money into R&D to design new and farther-flying baseballs.

 

Who understands that better comparison? Mike Davis of the USGA, that's who!

 

https://www.golfdige...of-golfs-future

 

Oh by the way; when the pitchers in baseball became too dominant, baseball DID undertake a "rollback" of sorts; they lowered the pitchers' mound.

 

RGs all agree! Anyone who disagrees is a moron!

[OrangeGravy]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never throw it above 97 mph.

 

Of course, this is a completely moronic comparison. Baseball pitchers are throwing a ball that hasn't much changed over the decades. If baseball were like modern golf, we'd have private companies pouring tons of money into R&D to design new and farther-flying baseballs.

 

Who understands that better comparison? Mike Davis of the USGA, that's who!

 

https://www.golfdige...of-golfs-future

 

Sounds like he's talking a lot about a potential rule allowance for certain courses to adopt the shorter ball. I think I would like that. There are some really short courses that I don't like to play do to the cost not being proportional to the enjoyment I get. Dollar for dollar, I'd rather play a course that's a hair too long than one that is too short. For whatever reason I don't feel I get my money's worth. I'm cheap like that, but give me a shorter ball and that course would "play" the same theoretically as a longer course. Probably be a good challenge also. A lot of the shorter courses around me have really small greens that would make it interesting coming from 170 as opposed to 110 all day.

 

I'm not so sure most people would be too enamored with having to buy special ball just to play "a" particular course though. It seems to me you either roll it back or don't. Like I've said before, I don't care one way or the other. I'll still play as much as I can either way.

[OrangeGravy]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never throw it above 97 mph.

 

Of course, this is a completely moronic comparison. Baseball pitchers are throwing a ball that hasn't much changed over the decades. If baseball were like modern golf, we'd have private companies pouring tons of money into R&D to design new and farther-flying baseballs.

 

Who understands that better comparison? Mike Davis of the USGA, that's who!

 

https://www.golfdige...of-golfs-future

 

Oh by the way; when the pitchers in baseball became too dominant, baseball DID undertake a "rollback" of sorts; they lowered the pitchers' mound.

 

RGs all agree! Anyone who disagrees is a moron!

 

Baseball is funky though. It's hard to compare with golf. They've gone through a number of periods where the league was rumored to have either juiced the ball or deadened it depending on which way the wind was blowing. The "League" has taken an active roll in either controlling or ignoring things (steroids) that gave them the results they needed for ratings sake. There's an unspoken badge of honor in getting away with bending the rules in baseball to gain an edge. It's not looked down upon and in fact almost celebrated. Pitchers doctoring the ball, hitters corking bats etc... Home teams have always manicured/altered their field to suite the style or strength of their team. I've known coaches that keep game balls in the freezer when a team with power comes to town.

 

Officially they did, but that's only really regulated at the MLB level. Around the rest of the baseball world mounds are often higher than the limit. On the road one night playing a team (coach) that has a particularly nasty attitude, I requested that the umpire have the home team measure the mound right before the game started. I knew it was too high and I knew it cause the other guy to go on tilt. They measured and it was 5 inches too high. The umpire gave us the option to take a forefit. I opted to play ( was never not gonna play ) and said it wouldn't keep us from winning anyway and we did, by a lot. He didn't shake my hand after the game needless to say.

 

Sorry for the OT rant. One of my favorite games coaching ever.

[Shilgy]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never throw it above 97 mph.

 

Of course, this is a completely moronic comparison. Baseball pitchers are throwing a ball that hasn’t much changed over the decades. If baseball were like modern golf, we’d have private companies pouring tons of money into R&D to design new and farther-flying baseballs.

 

Who understands that better comparison? Mike Davis of the USGA, that’s who!

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-executive-director-says-variable-distance-ball-could-be-part-of-golfs-future

 

Oh by the way; when the pitchers in baseball became too dominant, baseball DID undertake a “rollback” of sorts; they lowered the pitchers’ mound.

First you wanted a rollback "only because it was the easiest way to deal with the issue". So why compare to baseball technology?

Does it matter why players throw harder? You claim it does not matter in golf why players are longer. Baseball has a problem say the purists. There is a vastly higher percentage of at bats that do not result in baserunners than ever before. Walk, strikeout and home run percentages are all up.

[15th Club]

...

...

...

...First you wanted a rollback "only because it was the easiest way to deal with the issue". So why compare to baseball technology?

Does it matter why players throw harder? You claim it does not matter in golf why players are longer. Baseball has a problem say the purists. There is a vastly higher percentage of at bats that do not result in baserunners than ever before. Walk, strikeout and home run percentages are all up.

I didn’t feel much need to make a baseball comparison; somebody else started that. I hope I finished it.

 

And when I have (repeatedly) said that the ball is by far the easiest thing to change in golf’s distance equation, it was in response to others’ asking, <I>But what about improved fitness? What about the high-tech drivers? What about launch monitors? What about agronomy and fast fairway grasses?</I>

[Ashley Schaeffer]

...

...

...

...First you wanted a rollback "only because it was the easiest way to deal with the issue". So why compare to baseball technology?

Does it matter why players throw harder? You claim it does not matter in golf why players are longer. Baseball has a problem say the purists. There is a vastly higher percentage of at bats that do not result in baserunners than ever before. Walk, strikeout and home run percentages are all up.

I didn’t feel much need to make a baseball comparison; somebody else started that. I hope I finished it.

 

And when I have (repeatedly) said that the ball is by far the easiest thing to change in golf’s distance equation, it was in response to others’ asking, <I>But what about improved fitness? What about the high-tech drivers? What about launch monitors? What about agronomy and fast fairway grasses?</I>

 

Gotta change something, amirite? RGs like us should make sure we tell all these peasant chops what's best for them. They think they know, but they have no idea. We should start a group, a pseudo-governmental body, if you will, that will make sure nothing gets out of hand. We could oversee these non-RGs to make sure we do what we think is right, even if they are all against it. We can just tell them they aren't RGs if they disagree.

 

What should we call it?

[straightshot7]

I don't know anything about golf ball manufacturing.

 

Can you make one precisely where the ball flies 10 yards less?

 

If so, I think that's a good option.

[QuigleyDU]

I just don’t understand the preceding several comments. To whom are they addressed? A ball rollback is not intended to prevent the most talented long-hitting players from winning on the Tour. Current golf ball distances are not a problem because Dustin Johnson or Jason Day are succeeding on the Tour; the problem isn’t resolved if Webb Simpson or another “short” hitter is doing well competitively.

 

(In my dreams, I’d love to be as “short” a hitter as Webb Simpson. 290 yards average in tournament play. What is so remarkable, is that a guy averaging 290 yards in driving distance is only 145th on Tour.)

Hey! We agree. Webb is not short at 290 average. He is short,however, compared to other the top 500 pro golfers in the world.

 

And, someone with $20 million dollars is not poor. But compared to the 500 richest folks in the world he is a pauper.

 

What both of you are forgetting is the the difference between 145 and say 50th or even top in distance is likely less than 10 yards. In real play that is nothing and many time will be hitting the same club as second shots.

[15th Club]

I just don’t understand the preceding several comments. To whom are they addressed? A ball rollback is not intended to prevent the most talented long-hitting players from winning on the Tour. Current golf ball distances are not a problem because Dustin Johnson or Jason Day are succeeding on the Tour; the problem isn’t resolved if Webb Simpson or another “short” hitter is doing well competitively.

 

(In my dreams, I’d love to be as “short” a hitter as Webb Simpson. 290 yards average in tournament play. What is so remarkable, is that a guy averaging 290 yards in driving distance is only 145th on Tour.)

Hey! We agree. Webb is not short at 290 average. He is short,however, compared to other the top 500 pro golfers in the world.

 

And, someone with $20 million dollars is not poor. But compared to the 500 richest folks in the world he is a pauper.

 

What both of you are forgetting is the the difference between 145 and say 50th or even top in distance is likely less than 10 yards. In real play that is nothing and many time will be hitting the same club as second shots.

 

I am not forgetting that. I did not bring any particular Tour player or group of Tour players into this. I was only trying to respond to that. And again I say that particular competitive advantages or disadvantages on Tour are totally beside the point in this debate.

[Shilgy]

If there is no advantage to being longer what exactly is the problem? There will always be some players that are longer than others. No matter how far you roll the ball back for everyone.

[bladehunter]

But you know the people that focus on distance are the people that usually never obtain it.

That's interesting. When we have the debate at my club about rolling the equipment back it's always the longer hitters that are all for it and the shorter hitters that don't want it changed. The longer hitters want their advantage back and the short knocks enjoy occasionally putting it out there 300 plus when they have a nice breeze at their back.

 

Weird viewpoint, I don't feel that my length isn't an advantage still or that I have lost it due to the ball going farther. I think more people just hit the ball long nowadays especially in the competitive ranks. But the ball is only part of the equation. I definitely don't think a shorter ball would make the pro tours more entertaining.

That viewpoint is actually pretty common by guys that hit it far and relatively straight. You basically said it yourself that more people hit the ball long in the competitive ranks. That’s an outright admission that being a big hitter isn’t the advantage it used to be. A guy like a Rory or a JT would enjoy an even greater advantage under conditions from 25 years ago. That’s all I’m saying. What that would mean for entertainment? Who knows. It’s not getting rolled back so it’s more of a hypothetical argument anyways.

 

 

100 % correct. Any long hitter should be all for a rollback ifhe has sense enough to do the easy math.

[bladehunter]

I just don’t understand the preceding several comments. To whom are they addressed? A ball rollback is not intended to prevent the most talented long-hitting players from winning on the Tour. Current golf ball distances are not a problem because Dustin Johnson or Jason Day are succeeding on the Tour; the problem isn’t resolved if Webb Simpson or another “short” hitter is doing well competitively.

 

(In my dreams, I’d love to be as “short” a hitter as Webb Simpson. 290 yards average in tournament play. What is so remarkable, is that a guy averaging 290 yards in driving distance is only 145th on Tour.)

Hey! We agree. Webb is not short at 290 average. He is short,however, compared to other the top 500 pro golfers in the world.

 

And, someone with $20 million dollars is not poor. But compared to the 500 richest folks in the world he is a pauper.

 

What both of you are forgetting is the the difference between 145 and say 50th or even top in distance is likely less than 10 yards. In real play that is nothing and many time will be hitting the same club as second shots.

 

Yes. But those are the average guys. The top 35 or so is who would see the advantage. The guys who are 20-40 yards longer. 2-4 clubs shorter into every green is a advantage. When those clubs are 9 iron vs 6 iron for the average guys then you see the cream dominate. Equipment is what is hunching up the fields more than anything.

[15th Club]

If there is no advantage to being longer what exactly is the problem? There will always be some players that are longer than others. No matter how far you roll the ball back for everyone.

 

Not sure what to say to this. Golf has always featured some competitors who were longer than others. No matter what the equipment was. For hundreds of years. I don’t expect it to ever be different. With or without a ball rollback. Who would say otherwise? Not me!

[knock it close]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

 

Up to 97 mph is fine, it's the stuff above that we need to reel in. If you have the ability to toss it 101, sorry. You're back at 97.1. Otherwise, you're just ruining the game for people who could never threw it above 97 mph.

Let's use the same 10%. All above 90 mph will be rolled back. Bartolo Colon is safe.

 

Not a bad idea, but I think it should be 20%, so guys can't ever hurl it as fast as my childhood idol. While we are at it, get that mound lowered and extended to 80 feet and keep it there after the rollback.

I don't get this comparison peak velocity in baseball really hasn't changed over the course of history, ya more guys are able to throw in the high 90's now than before but the peak speed really hasn't jumped. There are reports of Nolan Ryan's fastball that was clocked at 100.9 actually being 108 mph due to the placement of the radar gun. Also they have lowered the mound after Bob Gibson posted a 1.12 era in 1968, strikezones have been changed, humidors have been installed to roll back the ball in Colorado and they just put one in Arizona this year. So yes more guys are throwing near that peak velocity just like in golf more guys are hitting it closer to that top distance, the difference is the top distance has jumped far more in golf than top velo has in baseball.

[geesecougar2]

If we're gonna use a pitching comparison, the situation today would be like if guys were pitching faster and faster because Rawlings makes a more aerodynamic ball. And in response the MLB makes the plate and strikezone smaller to compensate. You can probably imagine how that would fundamentally change the way the game is played.

[gvogel]

Now the consumers are used to the equipment and the players have developed a different way to play the game. Yesterday Dustin Johnson hit 3 wood/8 iron on a 525 yard par 5. That's 125 yards more than Nicklaus would have gotten out of 3 wood/8 iron in the 70's. Better or worse it's a different game that has evolved and you can't just stuff it back in the bottle.

 

So DJ hits 3 wood / 8 iron and Nicklaus hit driver / 2 iron. Both play the same 525 yards. It requires the same skill. The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference.

 

It's pretty tough to argue against illogical thinking like that. With Nicklaus' swing speed and modern equipment, the driver /2-iron goes well over 600 yards, which is a significantly more skillful two shots than 3-wood /8-iron to 525.

[Shilgy]

If there is no advantage to being longer what exactly is the problem? There will always be some players that are longer than others. No matter how far you roll the ball back for everyone.

 

Not sure what to say to this. Golf has always featured some competitors who were longer than others. No matter what the equipment was. For hundreds of years. I don’t expect it to ever be different. With or without a ball rollback. Who would say otherwise? Not me!

I asked because you said this a few posts above.

"And again I say that particular competitive advantages or disadvantages on Tour are totally beside the point in this debate."

 

If long hitting is not an advantage what what exactly is this hullabaloo about a rollback?

I'll phrase it another way. If there is no advantage to long hitting then why exactly do courses need protecting?

[15th Club]

If there is no advantage to being longer what exactly is the problem? There will always be some players that are longer than others. No matter how far you roll the ball back for everyone.

 

Not sure what to say to this. Golf has always featured some competitors who were longer than others. No matter what the equipment was. For hundreds of years. I don’t expect it to ever be different. With or without a ball rollback. Who would say otherwise? Not me!

I asked because you said this a few posts above.

"And again I say that particular competitive advantages or disadvantages on Tour are totally beside the point in this debate."

 

If long hitting is not an advantage what what exactly is this hullabaloo about a rollback?

I'll phrase it another way. If there is no advantage to long hitting then why exactly do courses need protecting?

 

There IS an advantage, all other things being equal, to being a long hitter. Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods; all very long in comparison to their competition. It served them well. All we need to do, is define what is competitively long, and what is ludicrously long.

 

So I’ll try an even more simple iteration of what I am arguing. The aim of a ball rollback is to scale back the entire field, and not certain players within the field. Longer-hitting elite golfers will be scaled back. Medium-hitting elite players will be scaled back. “Short”-hitting (lol) elite players will be scaled back. All of the competitive advantages and disadvantages will be preserved as much as possible. There will still be all the same stylistic and competitive differences remain. But elite-level driving distance comes back, by 10 or 20 yards. (And hopefully recreational players won’t see any noticeable difference.)

[Shilgy]

15, you lol at "short hitting elite" but they are out there. Even on tour. You had earlier claimed that the 108 mph and less could not be affected. There are some pretty good pros in that category.

 

Your new yardage rollback would be 5% or so. Which is more reasonable but not enough to bring some of your courses back into play. Below 7000 will still be too short.