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

[buckeyefl]

One of the authors on a competing site stated this morning that driver distance is not maxed out. His reasoning:

 

The CT test allows slightly higher ball speeds than the COR test which was phased out in 2004. In fact, there are some drivers which can pass the CT test which would not pass the COR test. Look for some manufacturers (Titleist claims to do this on the TS models) to test every head going to market, and scrapping the heads that are unacceptable.

 

Manufacturers have been able to expand the "hottest" portion of the face - there is more forgiveness across the face, so off center hits have more ball speed.

 

Distance isn't just about ball speed. Launch and spin are also paramount, and manufacturers continue to manipulate launch and spin characteristics to attain more distance.

 

Club head aeronautics have been tweaked, and will continue to be. Even the new Titleist TS drivers have better aeronautic properties.

 

Throw in lighter weight heads, lighter and better shafts, and there is more distance improvements in those areas as well.

So who intiated a test change?

 

Also as was stated, lighter isn't the realm of those that you few are trying to limit and destroy the game over.

 

To do the COR test, you have to shoot a ball at a club face and record the rebound. You can do that in a lab, but not in the field.

 

The CT test was developed so that it can be administered in the field - ie. on-site at a tournament.

 

On the subject of lighter, a lot more Tour pros are using 60 gram shafts now than 10 years ago. 10 years ago, 70 gram shafts were the norm for control. Newer shafts with better materials can provide that type of control in a lighter package.

 

I thought it was the ball? Also most tour players , who have no comparison to regular payers in skill, aren't using lighter shafts. They can be as high quality and stable as you like but the weight is wrong.

[bladehunter]

One of the authors on a competing site stated this morning that driver distance is not maxed out. His reasoning:

 

The CT test allows slightly higher ball speeds than the COR test which was phased out in 2004. In fact, there are some drivers which can pass the CT test which would not pass the COR test. Look for some manufacturers (Titleist claims to do this on the TS models) to test every head going to market, and scrapping the heads that are unacceptable.

 

Manufacturers have been able to expand the "hottest" portion of the face - there is more forgiveness across the face, so off center hits have more ball speed.

 

Distance isn't just about ball speed. Launch and spin are also paramount, and manufacturers continue to manipulate launch and spin characteristics to attain more distance.

 

Club head aerodynamics have been tweaked, and will continue to be. Even the new Titleist TS drivers have better aerodynamic properties.

 

Throw in lighter weight heads, lighter and better shafts, and there is more distance improvements in those areas as well.

 

 

its been happening since callaway unleashed the epic ... I tested drivers for hours on end this summer and rogue won on off center ballspeed by over 4 mph... jailbreak has shown real gains since its introduction ... thats huge... now thats after i narrowed down the fitting for other criteria.. The M1 17 , M3 440 and rogue / rogue subzero remained.. Regular rogue won. Driving distance isnt done.

 

 

that being said..trackman is still the biggest culprit... Im seeing it on a regular basis with driver.. i know a guy whos pretty maxed out on trackman and is 8 mph average slower than me ..He sometimes hits it 20 past me on his perfect strikes ... He never used to ...He can carry it high with no spin and get alot more roll than i do... But i gave up on the idea of maxing out.. I was lucky enough to be fit through a tour connection and come to know i hit the center near everytime if i went to a short driver, IF the head was heavy enough .. so 43 1/4 with a 216 G head and 80G shaft equals center contact, low enough spin (2400ish) and great dispersion and reliable distance.. Two days it took to find this out.. Id never have got there in a store using todays logic..

 

guys who can use trackman to swing up and use all of their speed will continue to find distance .

[DFS PFD]

One thing I agree with you both on, lighter overall clubs (mostly caused by lighter shafts these days) needs to be limited. It is already getting almost to late to do so. USGA needs to think and see this type of stuff ahead of time instead of waiting for it to become a "problem". I am cool with limiting things to as is currently, or proactively limit a trend from getting out of hand, but not going bass akwards.

 

Yes, legislating away stuff that makes golf more enjoyable for 70-year-old 10-handicappers is a key element of promoting the health and growth of the game.

What is the duration of that growth if we're targeting 70 year old players?

[clevited]

One thing I agree with you both on, lighter overall clubs (mostly caused by lighter shafts these days) needs to be limited. It is already getting almost to late to do so. USGA needs to think and see this type of stuff ahead of time instead of waiting for it to become a "problem". I am cool with limiting things to as is currently, or proactively limit a trend from getting out of hand, but not going bass akwards.

 

Yes, legislating away stuff that makes golf more enjoyable for 70-year-old 10-handicappers is a key element of promoting the health and growth of the game.

 

No no no, locking down the sport to keep it from incrementally changing too much. Nothing wrong with that if done correctly. Golf clubs are plenty light right now, don't need them to be similar to swinging a bare shaft. It may be too little too late to put a cap on club weight though, not sure how much lighter things can go. You fundamentally have to lock down certain things in a game to keep it still the same game. I would say certain things years ago should have been prevented but weren't, now the game has changed as a result. Doesn't bother me but long term it will continue to change. The only way to smartly keep the game in check like the USGA wants to is to be forward thinking and put limits on things. They put limits on the ball already, but they could put limits on some other things. One is overall club weight.

 

I am ok with keeping a game in check with certain limits being put in place, I am not ok with being retroactive with any change.

[clevited]

One of the authors on a competing site stated this morning that driver distance is not maxed out. His reasoning:

 

The CT test allows slightly higher ball speeds than the COR test which was phased out in 2004. In fact, there are some drivers which can pass the CT test which would not pass the COR test. Look for some manufacturers (Titleist claims to do this on the TS models) to test every head going to market, and scrapping the heads that are unacceptable.

 

Manufacturers have been able to expand the "hottest" portion of the face - there is more forgiveness across the face, so off center hits have more ball speed.

 

Distance isn't just about ball speed. Launch and spin are also paramount, and manufacturers continue to manipulate launch and spin characteristics to attain more distance.

 

Club head aerodynamics have been tweaked, and will continue to be. Even the new Titleist TS drivers have better aerodynamic properties.

 

Throw in lighter weight heads, lighter and better shafts, and there is more distance improvements in those areas as well.

 

 

its been happening since callaway unleashed the epic ... I tested drivers for hours on end this summer and rogue won on off center ballspeed by over 4 mph... jailbreak has shown real gains since its introduction ... thats huge... now thats after i narrowed down the fitting for other criteria.. The M1 17 , M3 440 and rogue / rogue subzero remained.. Regular rogue won. Driving distance isnt done.

 

 

that being said..trackman is still the biggest culprit... Im seeing it on a regular basis with driver.. i know a guy whos pretty maxed out on trackman and is 8 mph average slower than me ..He sometimes hits it 20 past me on his perfect strikes ... He never used to ...He can carry it high with no spin and get alot more roll than i do... But i gave up on the idea of maxing out.. I was lucky enough to be fit through a tour connection and come to know i hit the center near everytime if i went to a short driver, IF the head was heavy enough .. so 43 1/4 with a 216 G head and 80G shaft equals center contact, low enough spin (2400ish) and great dispersion and reliable distance.. Two days it took to find this out.. Id never have got there in a store using todays logic..

 

guys who can use trackman to swing up and use all of their speed will continue to find distance .

 

Your driving distance surely didn't increase? If you think it did, you might be giving in to the marketing placebo effect. Maybe the forgiveness changed a little, but I have seen reviews and tried that club myself and didn't note any kind of added forgiveness over the epic or m2 other clubs. Most of the reviews I saw didn't note it being appreciably better than the Epic. Some found much better performance from M3 or M4.

[radiman]

One thing I agree with you both on, lighter overall clubs (mostly caused by lighter shafts these days) needs to be limited. It is already getting almost to late to do so. USGA needs to think and see this type of stuff ahead of time instead of waiting for it to become a "problem". I am cool with limiting things to as is currently, or proactively limit a trend from getting out of hand, but not going bass akwards.

 

Yes, legislating away stuff that makes golf more enjoyable for 70-year-old 10-handicappers is a key element of promoting the health and growth of the game.

 

No no no, locking down the sport to keep it from incrementally changing too much. Nothing wrong with that if done correctly. Golf clubs are plenty light right now, don't need them to be similar to swinging a bare shaft. It may be too little too late to put a cap on club weight though, not sure how much lighter things can go. You fundamentally have to lock down certain things in a game to keep it still the same game. I would say certain things years ago should have been prevented but weren't, now the game has changed as a result. Doesn't bother me but long term it will continue to change. The only way to smartly keep the game in check like the USGA wants to is to be forward thinking and put limits on things. They put limits on the ball already, but they could put limits on some other things. One is overall club weight.

 

I am ok with keeping a game in check with certain limits being put in place, I am not ok with being retroactive with any change.

 

Well put. I agree with this statement 110%.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So, did they change anything yet? No? OK.

Even the USGA isn't dumb enough kowtow to a bunch of has beens and people who routinely ask to speak to managers.

[Pigems]

Just make a rule that no club can be more than 1/2” longer/shorter than the one before or after it, except the putter. To play standard length irons the driver would be what? Like 40/41” long maybe? That would eat into the distance pretty good.

[smashdn]

Why is a ground game more important than an air game? Who decided that ground golf with all of its lucky and unlucky bounces is better than target golf?

 

If you dry it out and have a running course don't you have both? You hit a landing target that you hope will give you the best outcome after running out/releasing?

[ThinkingPlus]

Why is a ground game more important than an air game? Who decided that ground golf with all of its lucky and unlucky bounces is better than target golf?

 

If you dry it out and have a running course don't you have both? You hit a landing target that you hope will give you the best outcome after running out/releasing?

The issue that RK2003 is addressing is the assertion by 15 that the only valid and proper way to conduct elite level golf tournaments is to intentionally setup the course to be firm and fast where many shots must be played along the ground. However, this inevitably leads to very long drives or players using less than driver on many holes. The long drives and other clubs off the tee devalue the challenge to the elite golfers per 15 et al. causing the cry for a rollback of the ball. RK2003 was simply questioning the supposed requirement of "firm and fast" as being the only way to challenge elite players. He is asserting, as an example, that setting up a course where shots played primarily through the air with normal amounts of roll can be equally challenging and a valid test of golf.

[new2g0lf]

A 220 yard shot with a 205 yard carry takes the same skill no matter who hits the shot. The variable isn't the equipment, it's the golfer. The fact a better skilled golfer can use a 6i while a lesser skilled one has to use a 3w has nothing to do with equipment, they both have access to the same 6i, the lesser skilled golfer doesn't have the athleticism to hit a 6i as far as a better skilled player.

 

The pro's are the best of the best, athleticism and skill is what separates the best from the rest. Should they roll back the baseball because the strongest players hit too many home runs while the weaker ones don't? Should we require QB's to use balls that are weighted differently to account for differences in arm strength?

 

You can't normalize the game without ruining it. If 30% of pro golfers can bomb and gouge a golf course then so be it, they are the best of the best that's what they are supposed to do if the course isn't designed to be competitive for them.

[Roadking2003]

One thing I agree with you both on, lighter overall clubs (mostly caused by lighter shafts these days) needs to be limited. It is already getting almost to late to do so. USGA needs to think and see this type of stuff ahead of time instead of waiting for it to become a "problem". I am cool with limiting things to as is currently, or proactively limit a trend from getting out of hand, but not going bass akwards.

 

Yes, legislating away stuff that makes golf more enjoyable for 70-year-old 10-handicappers is a key element of promoting the health and growth of the game.

 

No no no, locking down the sport to keep it from incrementally changing too much. Nothing wrong with that if done correctly. Golf clubs are plenty light right now, don't need them to be similar to swinging a bare shaft. It may be too little too late to put a cap on club weight though, not sure how much lighter things can go. You fundamentally have to lock down certain things in a game to keep it still the same game. I would say certain things years ago should have been prevented but weren't, now the game has changed as a result. Doesn't bother me but long term it will continue to change. The only way to smartly keep the game in check like the USGA wants to is to be forward thinking and put limits on things. They put limits on the ball already, but they could put limits on some other things. One is overall club weight.

 

I am ok with keeping a game in check with certain limits being put in place, I am not ok with being retroactive with any change.

 

Well put. I agree with this statement 110%.

 

How is that possible? Complete agreement is only 100%. :taunt:

[radiman]

One thing I agree with you both on, lighter overall clubs (mostly caused by lighter shafts these days) needs to be limited. It is already getting almost to late to do so. USGA needs to think and see this type of stuff ahead of time instead of waiting for it to become a "problem". I am cool with limiting things to as is currently, or proactively limit a trend from getting out of hand, but not going bass akwards.

 

Yes, legislating away stuff that makes golf more enjoyable for 70-year-old 10-handicappers is a key element of promoting the health and growth of the game.

 

No no no, locking down the sport to keep it from incrementally changing too much. Nothing wrong with that if done correctly. Golf clubs are plenty light right now, don't need them to be similar to swinging a bare shaft. It may be too little too late to put a cap on club weight though, not sure how much lighter things can go. You fundamentally have to lock down certain things in a game to keep it still the same game. I would say certain things years ago should have been prevented but weren't, now the game has changed as a result. Doesn't bother me but long term it will continue to change. The only way to smartly keep the game in check like the USGA wants to is to be forward thinking and put limits on things. They put limits on the ball already, but they could put limits on some other things. One is overall club weight.

 

I am ok with keeping a game in check with certain limits being put in place, I am not ok with being retroactive with any change.

 

Well put. I agree with this statement 110%.

 

How is that possible? Complete agreement is only 100%. :taunt:

 

I'm using the same math from the anonymous pro survey.

 

[Shilgy]

 

Well put. I agree with this statement 110%.

 

How is that possible? Complete agreement is only 100%. :taunt:

 

I'm using the same math from the anonymous pro survey.

Then you're only 108% certain lol.

[rangersgoalie]

But 115th club correct!

[15th Club]

A 220 yard shot with a 205 yard carry takes the same skill no matter who hits the shot. The variable isn't the equipment, it's the golfer. The fact a better skilled golfer can use a 6i while a lesser skilled one has to use a 3w has nothing to do with equipment, they both have access to the same 6i, the lesser skilled golfer doesn't have the athleticism to hit a 6i as far as a better skilled player.

 

But the problem is that with technological advances in equipment, there are not enough of the 220 yard shots with 205 yard carries. For the entire field. It is a technology-versus-architecture problem.

 

The pro's are the best of the best, athleticism and skill is what separates the best from the rest. Should they roll back the baseball because the strongest players hit too many home runs while the weaker ones don't? Should we require QB's to use balls that are weighted differently to account for differences in arm strength?

If only the strongest players hit home runs (mostly) and the weaker ones do not hit home runs (mostly), with some exciting exceptions, then the game and the technology are balanced just right. Let's remember; baseball doesn't come out with new advances in baseball design and construction every year. They all play with one kind of ball, and that ball is designed and manufactured for a certain kind of performance. Not "maxed out" in any way. If for some odd reason (and the kind of reason would not probably not even matter), and suddenly every major leaguer was hitting 50 home runs and some were hitting 100 home runs, they would roll back baseballs. Immediately.

 

As for your weird notion of differently-weighted footballs to account for differences in arm strength, absolutely no one in golf on my side of the rollback debate is talking about handicapping equipment for individual players. I shouldn't have to take the trouble to shoot down such a pointless and irrelevant argument, but do it I will. The ball rollback debate HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES WITHIN THE CLASS OF ELITE LEVEL PLAYERS. We are not trying to disadvantage long hitters. We are not trying to help short hitters. We are trying to scale the entirety of elite level golf to better fit the classic historic championship golf courses, requiring fewer architectural changes to those courses, and reducing the competitive obsoletion of older-design courses.

 

You can't normalize the game without ruining it. If 30% of pro golfers can bomb and gouge a golf course then so be it, they are the best of the best that's what they are supposed to do if the course isn't designed to be competitive for them.

You are choosing modern golf equipment, over classic golf course architecture. You are free to do that, if you want. I will make the opposite choice. And not only am I just as free to do that, I feel as though I will have the USGA and the R&A in agreement with my side.

[Darth Putter]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/vote-usga-randa-offer-online-survey-to-gauge-distance-opinions

[radiman]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdige...stance-opinions

 

This is a completely different survey than the last time. Thanks for posting this.

[buckeyefl]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/vote-usga-randa-offer-online-survey-to-gauge-distance-opinions

 

Sadly the results will mean nothing and they will do as they like.

[radiman]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdige...stance-opinions

 

Sadly the results will mean nothing and they will do as they like.

 

I think they are more likely gauging the blowback they will get after the rollback. Regardless of the outcome of the survey, something tells me the deciding factor will be what percentage of pissed off golfers are they ok with. Based on the answers, they will more than likely have a rating so they can see who will be really pissed all the way up to mildly irritated.

[North Butte]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdige...stance-opinions

 

Sadly the results will mean nothing and they will do as they like.

 

I think they are more likely gauging the blowback they will get after the rollback. Regardless of the outcome of the survey, something tells me the deciding factor will be what percentage of pissed off golfers are they ok with. Based on the answers, they will more than likely have a rating so they can see who will be really pissed all the way up to mildly irritated.

 

You assume this is anything other than checking a box that says "Golfer input solicited".

[radiman]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdige...stance-opinions

 

Sadly the results will mean nothing and they will do as they like.

 

I think they are more likely gauging the blowback they will get after the rollback. Regardless of the outcome of the survey, something tells me the deciding factor will be what percentage of pissed off golfers are they ok with. Based on the answers, they will more than likely have a rating so they can see who will be really pissed all the way up to mildly irritated.

 

You assume this is anything other than checking a box that says "Golfer input solicited".

 

Ha, you are right. Maybe I am giving them more credit than they deserve at this point :)

[chippa13]

Are we still not over the fact that the game (like every other sport on the planet) has evolved over the years?

[buckeyefl]

Are we still not over the fact that the game (like every other sport on the planet) has evolved over the years?

 

Take the survey and you will see that someone is not over it. Plenty of loaded questions that give away their agenda. They will get the results they want one way or another.

[buckeyefl]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdige...stance-opinions

 

Sadly the results will mean nothing and they will do as they like.

 

I think they are more likely gauging the blowback they will get after the rollback. Regardless of the outcome of the survey, something tells me the deciding factor will be what percentage of pissed off golfers are they ok with. Based on the answers, they will more than likely have a rating so they can see who will be really pissed all the way up to mildly irritated.

 

There were definitely a few blowback questions and I made it quite clear how big it would be and how it would affect their bottom line when asked.

[new2g0lf]

Are we still not over the fact that the game (like every other sport on the planet) has evolved over the years?

 

Take the survey and you will see that someone is not over it. Plenty of loaded questions that give away their agenda. They will get the results they want one way or another.

 

What a bogus survey, the agenda is very clear but that didn't stop me from hitting them with a dose of reality.

[DFS PFD]

Are we still not over the fact that the game (like every other sport on the planet) has evolved over the years?

 

Take the survey and you will see that someone is not over it. Plenty of loaded questions that give away their agenda. They will get the results they want one way or another.

 

What a bogus survey, the agenda is very clear but that didn't stop me from hitting them with a dose of reality.

Seemed pretty impartial to me, and gave you the ability to voice your opinion for being on either side of the discussion. Don't know what you guys expected.

[new2g0lf]

Are we still not over the fact that the game (like every other sport on the planet) has evolved over the years?

 

Take the survey and you will see that someone is not over it. Plenty of loaded questions that give away their agenda. They will get the results they want one way or another.

 

What a bogus survey, the agenda is very clear but that didn't stop me from hitting them with a dose of reality.

Seemed pretty impartial to me, and gave you the ability to voice your opinion for being on either side of the discussion. Don't know what you guys expected.

 

The questions were slanted and there were more options that indicated distance was more of a problem than a benefit. Anyone that averages less than 220 yards off the tee has to be against any rollback unless they are willing to play non-conforming equipment.

[dosman]

Now you can quit arguing with people whose opinions don't matter and give your opinions to the people that DO matter.

 

https://www.golfdige...stance-opinions

 

Sadly the results will mean nothing and they will do as they like.

 

I think they are more likely gauging the blowback they will get after the rollback. Regardless of the outcome of the survey, something tells me the deciding factor will be what percentage of pissed off golfers are they ok with. Based on the answers, they will more than likely have a rating so they can see who will be really pissed all the way up to mildly irritated.

 

There were definitely a few blowback questions and I made it quite clear how big it would be and how it would affect their bottom line when asked.

Full agreement. After following closely all 127+ pages here (and info elsewhere), I'm ardently anti-rollback. I took the survey and made certain my responses and comments reflected my stance.

 

One of the (several) poorly-worded selections was about willingness to use non-conforming balls in the future. There was no clarification about the status of current balls, leaving me thinking that, post-rollback, those would mostly be found non-conforming. I am not interested in hitting an 80-85% Titleist.

[buckeyefl]

That question stuck out like a sore thumb.