Who Said That Ya Can Never Go Back......

[buckeyefl]

> @Ole3wiggle said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > I have long advocated that elite golfers (same ones that have to play by the groove rule in their wedges) should be restricted to driver head sizes of less than 230 cc (maybe even smaller) and driver face COR of whatever the original Pittsburgh Persimmon was. Give the golf courses a fighting chance, particularly if they aren't going to change ball specs.

> >

> > Thanks for posting the link.

>

> This is 100% what should be done. I dont understand why Professionals need 460cc driver heads. Lets pull the game back in and limit the distance the Driver & woods go. That goes for mold filled Driving Irons too.

 

Why do non pros need them?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @Ole3wiggle said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > I have long advocated that elite golfers (same ones that have to play by the groove rule in their wedges) should be restricted to driver head sizes of less than 230 cc (maybe even smaller) and driver face COR of whatever the original Pittsburgh Persimmon was. Give the golf courses a fighting chance, particularly if they aren't going to change ball specs.

> > >

> > > Thanks for posting the link.

> >

> > This is 100% what should be done. I dont understand why Professionals need 460cc driver heads. Lets pull the game back in and limit the distance the Driver & woods go. That goes for mold filled Driving Irons too.

>

> Why do non pros need them?

 

Good point. Wild theory: Maybe the biggest supporters of technological advances are those who played at an elite level before those advances occurred. They can now point to the club, the ball, the course, etc. in an attempt to avoid a direct comparison, therefore preserving what they hold dear. Just maybe, an apples to apples comparison isn’t what they would want. It’s just a thought.

 

[Golfjack]

Seriously, I think it's more interesting that pro's can vary their spin rates so much on command for a driver. Yes let's maximize distance for marketing. Spin at 2000. Get on a course and want to land it on a fairway, spin at 2600. Crazzzy talent!

Also, it stands to say who knows what kind of swing Rickie tried to put on the persimmon club. Did he do the trackman swing? Or the fairway swing? I'd say he did the trackman swing cuz it was for fun. Then there's the difference. But that's just an assumption. Although I think pro's would have no issue adjusting their swing. If they really needed a low spinning bomber, I think they would figure out how to do it.

[Ferguson]

> @new2g0lf said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > >

> > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > >

> > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > >

> > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > >

> > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> >

> > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> >

> > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> >

> >

>

> The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

 

"Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

 

Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

 

Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

It didn't pan out - so what.

 

The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

 

 

[dlygrisse]

> @iteachgolf said:

> They’d still have ball speeds in the 170s. And notice how many balls were in the fairway. Play wouldn’t drop off as much as you think. Kinda like how the groove rule was supposed to make scrambling harder, but from day 1 it actually made it easier and more predictable

 

It's not like guys were shooting in the 80's with the old tech, however the courses were shorter. I'd really like to know how far they were hitting it with the old driver and modern ball? My guess is guys like DJ and Rory could still pump one out there close to 300, but the 340 yard bomb would need a lot of help with wind or elevation, or roll out.

 

My guess is more drives averaging around 275, instead of 295. I don't even mind the larger head, it's the COR that should have never been allowed to happen. It clearly stated in the rules of golf that the face should not have a trampoline effect, although they had no way to measure it. Once they came up with a way to measure it, they set the bar too in the wrong direction. Now they openly market springy faces. Which really only help the bigger hitters. Bigger hitters got exponentially longer, shorter hitters just got a tiny bit longer.

 

Keep forgivness, lower change the COR back to old school. It would keep the game forgiving for the average guy and keep the distances under control.

[Forged4ever]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @new2g0lf said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > >

> > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > >

> > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > >

> > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > >

> > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > >

> > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > >

> > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

>

> "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

>

> Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

>

> Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> It didn't pan out - so what.

>

> The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

>

>

 

Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(as in even as a dues paying member, I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

 

The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

 

Have a great week Brother?

RP

[Ferguson]

> @Forged4ever said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > > >

> > > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > > >

> > > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > > >

> > > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

> >

> > "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

> >

> > Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

> >

> > Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> > It didn't pan out - so what.

> >

> > The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

> >

> >

>

> Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(As in I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

>

> The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

>

> Have a great week Brother?

> RP

 

Richard,

No doubt, I think N2G's dislike for the USGA was demonstrated in the manner of his response. While emotion can certainly drive the urge to "make a point" about the USGA, we must be aware that none of us can do anything about the decisions they make. Sure, as a governing body they do some strange things but they do some really good stuff too. The groove rule is over and done, and the same goes for new coke. The comparison made no sense to me as it didn't relate to anything current.

 

 

 

[gvogel]

> @Titleist99 said:

> Baseball has progressed, Football has progressed, Tennis has progressed.....Why not golf? I do not want to go back to the Feathery ball....If Old Tom Morris had a new Taylormade Iron, he would have used it!

 

I am troubled by this statement.

 

Baseball still uses wood bats at the major league level, even though titanium bats are made and are used in high school. Baseball is an interesting topic. You have baseball, and then you have softball. Softball is widely played recreationally. I take it that the larger ball is easier to hit for non-elite players. But at the major league level, the bat remains wood, and the ball is adjusted every so often so that major league ball parks are still relevant.

 

Consider what would have happened if baseball bats and baseballs had changed with technology. Baseball parks would have had to be expanded considerably, or home runs would have become so plentiful that singles, doubles and field play would have become irrelevant. With outfield walls at 600', the intimacy of a great ball park would have ceased. No one would want to sit in the outfield.

 

One of the great things about Augusta National, and one of the things that was absent at Erin Hills, is a sense of intimacy of the course. You can sit behind 12 tee and watch play on 11, 12 and the tee shots on 13. You can hear roars from a few holes in the distance. But as we can see from scoring averages at 13 and 15, modern technology is reducing the risk reward at those holes, which used to be so important to the tournament.

 

You can be against a ball/driver roll back, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. At some point, it has to happen in order to keep the Masters the tournament that it should be.

[Titleist99]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > Baseball has progressed, Football has progressed, Tennis has progressed.....Why not golf? I do not want to go back to the Feathery ball....If Old Tom Morris had a new Taylormade Iron, he would have used it!

>

> I am troubled by this statement.

>

> Baseball still uses wood bats at the major league level, even though titanium bats are made and are used in high school. Baseball is an interesting topic. You have baseball, and then you have softball. Softball is widely played recreationally. I take it that the larger ball is easier to hit for non-elite players. But at the major league level, the bat remains wood, and the ball is adjusted every so often so that major league ball parks are still relevant.

>

> Consider what would have happened if baseball bats and baseballs had changed with technology. Baseball parks would have had to be expanded considerably, or home runs would have become so plentiful that singles, doubles and field play would have become irrelevant. With outfield walls at 600', the intimacy of a great ball park would have ceased. No one would want to sit in the outfield.

>

> One of the great things about Augusta National, and one of the things that was absent at Erin Hills, is a sense of intimacy of the course. You can sit behind 12 tee and watch play on 11, 12 and the tee shots on 13. You can hear roars from a few holes in the distance. But as we can see from scoring averages at 13 and 15, modern technology is reducing the risk reward at those holes, which used to be so important to the tournament.

>

> You can be against a ball/driver roll back, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. At some point, it has to happen in order to keep the Masters the tournament that it should be.

The Masters will always be relevant and here's why....Golf is the only sport that can make the playing field and the score exactly what they want it to be (let me explain)…..The Masters get it right! They use the two things that they can control to their advantage and that's shortening or lengthening golf holes and course set up. The roars are there to lull the players into false sense of security then gobble you up with a dastardly hole. My final point is that when it comes to scoring, Vijay Singh's score in 2000 was 278 with a winners purse of 828K...and Tiger Woods 2019 score was 275 with a purse of 2MIL. Almost 20 years and the only thing that changes is the $$$. Remember when they Tiger proofed Augusta......Course set up my friend. Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, shorten some holes, add some bunkers, speed up some greens, slow down some greens, shave some banks, add some trees, ad some water, more humps and bumps......my point is they can set the course up where as nobody breaks par, even Tiger Woods....But I digress.

 

[bladehunter]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > Baseball has progressed, Football has progressed, Tennis has progressed.....Why not golf? I do not want to go back to the Feathery ball....If Old Tom Morris had a new Taylormade Iron, he would have used it!

>

> I am troubled by this statement.

>

> Baseball still uses wood bats at the major league level, even though titanium bats are made and are used in high school. Baseball is an interesting topic. You have baseball, and then you have softball. Softball is widely played recreationally. I take it that the larger ball is easier to hit for non-elite players. But at the major league level, the bat remains wood, and the ball is adjusted every so often so that major league ball parks are still relevant.

>

> Consider what would have happened if baseball bats and baseballs had changed with technology. Baseball parks would have had to be expanded considerably, or home runs would have become so plentiful that singles, doubles and field play would have become irrelevant. With outfield walls at 600', the intimacy of a great ball park would have ceased. No one would want to sit in the outfield.

>

> One of the great things about Augusta National, and one of the things that was absent at Erin Hills, is a sense of intimacy of the course. You can sit behind 12 tee and watch play on 11, 12 and the tee shots on 13. You can hear roars from a few holes in the distance. But as we can see from scoring averages at 13 and 15, modern technology is reducing the risk reward at those holes, which used to be so important to the tournament.

>

> You can be against a ball/driver roll back, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. At some point, it has to happen in order to keep the Masters the tournament that it should be.

 

Baseball has regressed if anything. Strike zone deals calling into question every umpires call , pitchers coming in for 1 batter 5 times a game. Hitters only trying to hit home runs etc. strokes gained and trackman ruined baseball ( with their respective correlating stats ) and will ruin/ is ruining golf.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > > > >

> > > > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > > > >

> > > > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

> > >

> > > "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

> > >

> > > Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

> > >

> > > Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> > > It didn't pan out - so what.

> > >

> > > The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(As in I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

> >

> > The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

> >

> > Have a great week Brother?

> > RP

>

> Richard,

> No doubt, I think N2G's dislike for the USGA was demonstrated in the manner of his response. While emotion can certainly drive the urge to "make a point" about the USGA, we must be aware that none of us can do anything about the decisions they make. Sure, as a governing body they do some strange things but they do some really good stuff too. The groove rule is over and done, and the same goes for new coke. The comparison made no sense to me as it didn't relate to anything current.

>

>

>

 

New Coke is more like the WRX Forum Redesign of 2019: A carefully calculated measure to make consumers realize how good the previous version was, followed by the resurrection of the previous version to further strengthen the brand. The ol' classic "don't know whatchu got 'til it's gone", if you will.

[iteachgolf]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @iteachgolf said:

> > They’d still have ball speeds in the 170s. And notice how many balls were in the fairway. Play wouldn’t drop off as much as you think. Kinda like how the groove rule was supposed to make scrambling harder, but from day 1 it actually made it easier and more predictable

>

> It's not like guys were shooting in the 80's with the old tech, however the courses were shorter. I'd really like to know how far they were hitting it with the old driver and modern ball? My guess is guys like DJ and Rory could still pump one out there close to 300, but the 340 yard bomb would need a lot of help with wind or elevation, or roll out.

>

> My guess is more drives averaging around 275, instead of 295. I don't even mind the larger head, it's the COR that should have never been allowed to happen. It clearly stated in the rules of golf that the face should not have a trampoline effect, although they had no way to measure it. Once they came up with a way to measure it, they set the bar too in the wrong direction. Now they openly market springy faces. Which really only help the bigger hitters. Bigger hitters got exponentially longer, shorter hitters just got a tiny bit longer.

>

> Keep forgivness, lower change the COR back to old school. It would keep the game forgiving for the average guy and keep the distances under control.

 

Except that smash factors of 1.48-1.5 are very attainable with a persimmon head and a modern ball. The same smash factor as a modern driver, modern head just as a larger “sweetspot” where it’s achievable. If you could keep the forgiveness of modern clubs the ballspeed wouldn’t change with persimmon.

 

DJ and Rory could easily “pump one out there” past 300, Fowler with a modern ball hit persimmon 292. To bomb it 340 yards now they need some help with wind, elevation or very firm fairways. You’d still see shots in the 330-350 range with how courses are prepped in the PGA Tour

[gvogel]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > Baseball has progressed, Football has progressed, Tennis has progressed.....Why not golf? I do not want to go back to the Feathery ball....If Old Tom Morris had a new Taylormade Iron, he would have used it!

> >

> > I am troubled by this statement.

> >

> > Baseball still uses wood bats at the major league level, even though titanium bats are made and are used in high school. Baseball is an interesting topic. You have baseball, and then you have softball. Softball is widely played recreationally. I take it that the larger ball is easier to hit for non-elite players. But at the major league level, the bat remains wood, and the ball is adjusted every so often so that major league ball parks are still relevant.

> >

> > Consider what would have happened if baseball bats and baseballs had changed with technology. Baseball parks would have had to be expanded considerably, or home runs would have become so plentiful that singles, doubles and field play would have become irrelevant. With outfield walls at 600', the intimacy of a great ball park would have ceased. No one would want to sit in the outfield.

> >

> > One of the great things about Augusta National, and one of the things that was absent at Erin Hills, is a sense of intimacy of the course. You can sit behind 12 tee and watch play on 11, 12 and the tee shots on 13. You can hear roars from a few holes in the distance. But as we can see from scoring averages at 13 and 15, modern technology is reducing the risk reward at those holes, which used to be so important to the tournament.

> >

> > You can be against a ball/driver roll back, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. At some point, it has to happen in order to keep the Masters the tournament that it should be.

> ****The Masters will always be relevant and here's why****....Golf is the only sport that can make the playing field and the score exactly what they want it to be (let me explain)…..The Masters get it right! They use the two things that they can control to their advantage and that's shortening or lengthening golf holes and course set up. The roars are there to lull the players into false sense of security then gobble you up with a dastardly hole. My final point is that when it comes to scoring, Vijay Singh's score in 2000 was 278 with a winners purse of 828K...and Tiger Woods 2019 score was 275 with a purse of 2MIL. Almost 20 years and the only thing that changes is the $$$. Remember when they Tiger proofed Augusta......Course set up my friend. Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, shorten some holes, add some bunkers, speed up some greens, slow down some greens, shave some banks, add some trees, ad some water, more humps and bumps......my point is they can set the course up where as nobody breaks par, even Tiger Woods....But I digress.

>

Some holes are becoming irrelevant, and don't take my word for it. Take Fred Ridley's word. He is running the place, and he is an ex US Am champ. I would guess that he knows a great deal more about how the modern game is making Augusta National irrelevant than you or I. He stated that they would not lengthen 13 this summer, awaiting word from the R&A/USGA about what they are going to do about distance. But fact: Augusta National paid $40 million (or maybe it was "only" $20 million) to Augusta Country Club for land behind the 13th tee so that they can lengthen the hole, if they have to. And they will, if the R&A and USGA do nothing about equipment, despite the fact that anti-roll back folks like you think that the 13th hole is "fine as it is." Just wait another year or two.

 

[Titleist99]

> @lowheel said:

>

> > Futile argument from the word go. Pure fantasy-land talk. Has anything so widely accepted in any sport been reigned in and done away with, going backwards to an obsolete piece of equipment? Maybe we should get rid of the 3-point line in the NBA, let's go back to the glory years...

>

> I have never been for any roll back of ball or equipment.I think its simply 19th hole/bar talk. With the agronomy tech that exists today the people setting up the course can make the winning score whatever they want more than equipment can.

 

Totally agree, If they wanted to they could set the course up where nobody breaks Par. Augusta National Gets it right ever year. So, stop this roll back the equipment nonsense …..

 

[Titleist99]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > Baseball has progressed, Football has progressed, Tennis has progressed.....Why not golf? I do not want to go back to the Feathery ball....If Old Tom Morris had a new Taylormade Iron, he would have used it!

> > >

> > > I am troubled by this statement.

> > >

> > > Baseball still uses wood bats at the major league level, even though titanium bats are made and are used in high school. Baseball is an interesting topic. You have baseball, and then you have softball. Softball is widely played recreationally. I take it that the larger ball is easier to hit for non-elite players. But at the major league level, the bat remains wood, and the ball is adjusted every so often so that major league ball parks are still relevant.

> > >

> > > Consider what would have happened if baseball bats and baseballs had changed with technology. Baseball parks would have had to be expanded considerably, or home runs would have become so plentiful that singles, doubles and field play would have become irrelevant. With outfield walls at 600', the intimacy of a great ball park would have ceased. No one would want to sit in the outfield.

> > >

> > > One of the great things about Augusta National, and one of the things that was absent at Erin Hills, is a sense of intimacy of the course. You can sit behind 12 tee and watch play on 11, 12 and the tee shots on 13. You can hear roars from a few holes in the distance. But as we can see from scoring averages at 13 and 15, modern technology is reducing the risk reward at those holes, which used to be so important to the tournament.

> > >

> > > You can be against a ball/driver roll back, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. At some point, it has to happen in order to keep the Masters the tournament that it should be.

> > ****The Masters will always be relevant and here's why****....Golf is the only sport that can make the playing field and the score exactly what they want it to be (let me explain)…..The Masters get it right! They use the two things that they can control to their advantage and that's shortening or lengthening golf holes and course set up. The roars are there to lull the players into false sense of security then gobble you up with a dastardly hole. My final point is that when it comes to scoring, Vijay Singh's score in 2000 was 278 with a winners purse of 828K...and Tiger Woods 2019 score was 275 with a purse of 2MIL. Almost 20 years and the only thing that changes is the $$$. Remember when they Tiger proofed Augusta......Course set up my friend. Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, shorten some holes, add some bunkers, speed up some greens, slow down some greens, shave some banks, add some trees, ad some water, more humps and bumps......my point is they can set the course up where as nobody breaks par, even Tiger Woods....But I digress.

> >

> Some holes are becoming irrelevant, and don't take my word for it. Take Fred Ridley's word. He is running the place, and he is an ex US Am champ. I would guess that he knows a great deal more about how the modern game is making Augusta National irrelevant than you or I. He stated that they would not lengthen 13 this summer, awaiting word from the R&A/USGA about what they are going to do about distance. But fact: Augusta National paid $40 million (or maybe it was "only" $20 million) to Augusta Country Club for land behind the 13th tee so that they can lengthen the hole, if they have to. And they will, if the R&A and USGA do nothing about equipment, despite the fact that anti-roll back folks like you think that the 13th hole is "fine as it is." Just wait another year or two.

>

That's because I'm not in love with Par. If par was 75 for a course so be it. As long as everyone has to play the same course, What's the problem....toughen up the course and make shot making a priority.

 

[Ferguson]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > > > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

> > > >

> > > > "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

> > > >

> > > > Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

> > > >

> > > > Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> > > > It didn't pan out - so what.

> > > >

> > > > The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(As in I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

> > >

> > > The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

> > >

> > > Have a great week Brother?

> > > RP

> >

> > Richard,

> > No doubt, I think N2G's dislike for the USGA was demonstrated in the manner of his response. While emotion can certainly drive the urge to "make a point" about the USGA, we must be aware that none of us can do anything about the decisions they make. Sure, as a governing body they do some strange things but they do some really good stuff too. The groove rule is over and done, and the same goes for new coke. The comparison made no sense to me as it didn't relate to anything current.

> >

> >

> >

>

> New Coke is more like the WRX Forum Redesign of 2019: A carefully calculated measure to make consumers realize how good the previous version was, followed by the resurrection of the previous version to further strengthen the brand. The ol' classic "don't know whatchu got 'til it's gone", if you will.

 

I like the new design of the forum and I applaud the folks here for trying something new. Nothing wrong with change.

 

I've earned 235 badges on the new board and I don't drink coca-cola products.

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > > > > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

> > > > >

> > > > > "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

> > > > >

> > > > > Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

> > > > >

> > > > > Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> > > > > It didn't pan out - so what.

> > > > >

> > > > > The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(As in I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

> > > >

> > > > The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

> > > >

> > > > Have a great week Brother?

> > > > RP

> > >

> > > Richard,

> > > No doubt, I think N2G's dislike for the USGA was demonstrated in the manner of his response. While emotion can certainly drive the urge to "make a point" about the USGA, we must be aware that none of us can do anything about the decisions they make. Sure, as a governing body they do some strange things but they do some really good stuff too. The groove rule is over and done, and the same goes for new coke. The comparison made no sense to me as it didn't relate to anything current.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > New Coke is more like the WRX Forum Redesign of 2019: A carefully calculated measure to make consumers realize how good the previous version was, followed by the resurrection of the previous version to further strengthen the brand. The ol' classic "don't know whatchu got 'til it's gone", if you will.

>

> I like the new design of the forum and I applaud the folks here for trying something new. Nothing wrong with change.

>

> I've earned 235 badges on the new board and I don't drink coca-cola products.

>

 

Haha! Just easin' the tension, baby, just easin' the tension.

I agree.

[Ferguson]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > > > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > > > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > > > > > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> > > > > > It didn't pan out - so what.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(As in I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

> > > > >

> > > > > The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

> > > > >

> > > > > Have a great week Brother?

> > > > > RP

> > > >

> > > > Richard,

> > > > No doubt, I think N2G's dislike for the USGA was demonstrated in the manner of his response. While emotion can certainly drive the urge to "make a point" about the USGA, we must be aware that none of us can do anything about the decisions they make. Sure, as a governing body they do some strange things but they do some really good stuff too. The groove rule is over and done, and the same goes for new coke. The comparison made no sense to me as it didn't relate to anything current.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > New Coke is more like the WRX Forum Redesign of 2019: A carefully calculated measure to make consumers realize how good the previous version was, followed by the resurrection of the previous version to further strengthen the brand. The ol' classic "don't know whatchu got 'til it's gone", if you will.

> >

> > I like the new design of the forum and I applaud the folks here for trying something new. Nothing wrong with change.

> >

> > I've earned 235 badges on the new board and I don't drink coca-cola products.

> >

>

> Haha! Just easin' the tension, baby, just easin' the tension.

> I agree.

 

 

I get a little wound up when it comes to comparisons. All I wanted from the "said comparison" was relevance.

"New Coke and Grooves" sounds like a Miami Nightclub.

 

 

 

 

[Titleist99]

People, please don't believe the hype....all these guys average about 300 yards. John Daly was the first to average 300 for the season and he had 5 pga tour wins. Max Homa just won Wells Fargo and he has averaged 312 yards.....with a whopping 1 win on the tour. Distance is only one part of golf....

[Forged4ever]

Let’s not forget that in the 1938 PGA Championship, on the Par 5 11th hole at Shawnee Country Club(now called Shawnee Inn & Golf Resort, Pocanos, Pa), Sam laced a measured 344yd bomb against Paul Runyan’s 242 yarder.

 

It’s not like the biggest hitters in the ensuing generations couldn’t send a ball deep. When I Played with Sam in his early 70’s on, he was 72-73yo(1975), the first time that I Played with him, he still hit it 265-275yds and 280+ if he really flushed it.

 

The PGA held a long drive contest in conjunction with the PGA Championship in 2014, the first time that they had done so in 50 years. The winner was Louis Oostuizen with a drive of 340yds.

 

That’s a serious drive regardless of the year however had Louis hit that same 340yd drive in the 1963 contest, he would’ve finished second to Jack’s 1963 blast of 341yds!!

 

Oh, and Jack would’ve finished second to Sam’s 1938 bomb? ?

 

2014~ 340yds

1963~ 341yds

1938~ 344yds

 

See a pattern here????

 

Yea the equipment definitely helps, and I happen to believe that it evens the Playing field somewhat for the marginal guys though as has been said, the long ballers would send it deep regardless of what generation that you dropped em in, including today’s Big Dogs?

 

 

Just look at Sam’s & Jack’s moves, and especially the pic of Jack & Sam through impact, lolol

 

Yea, the bows and arrows have improved greatly however it’s still the Indian in my book?

 

Oh yea, I almost forgot~

 

Mr. Runyan closed Sam out on that 11th hole, 8&7, with a chip in eagle(with his famed 3 wood) to Sam’s birdie??

 

Forget the US Opens, lmao

 

Sam never forgot that beating or quit talkin about that drive/hole, lmao

 

Cheers?

RP

[dlygrisse]

In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

 

Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

 

Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

 

Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

[new2g0lf]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > @straightshot7 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > > > > > > > @new2g0lf said:

> > > > > > > > > > The groove rule was the biggest failure since the change of the Coke formula, it did nothing to change the game for the pro's. Unless you go across the board, all pro tours including the LPGA, you're not going to see any rollback of drivers on the PGA Tour.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Poor compare.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > New Coke was a marketing campaign directed at regaining market share lost to Pepsi (and others).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The groove rule was enacted with the intent to make "playing from the rough" more challenging thus promoting accuracy from the tee. It had nothing to do with marketing.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ? He only compared them as both being big failures...he never said they shared the same purpose.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He stated the groove rule was the biggest failure since New Coke.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > New Coke didn't fail because of a change in consumption methodology.

> > > > > > > It failed due to taste and negative customer sentiment.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The groove rule didn't fail at all.

> > > > > > > It just didn't have the impact on the sport at the pro level as intended.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not having the intended impact = (some degree of) failure

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think he was just being playful with the Coke comment, and you're way overanalyzing it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Like if I said "Tiger Woods is the Wayne Gretsky of golf"---and you said "No, Tiger is not from Canada and never had long flowy hair".

> > > > >

> > > > > On the contrary, I believe any sort of impact could be considered a success.

> > > > >

> > > > > He made no mention of being playful, and if it was "simply playfulness", why make that comparison?

> > > > > Why new coke, and not something more closely tied to golf?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The only purpose of the analogy was they were both epic fails. The groove rule was implemented with the intentions of having an impact on bomb and gouge, yet here we are today.

> > >

> > > "Epic Fail" - you've been watching too much youtube.

> > >

> > > Did it affect peoples' lives, their income and their livelihoods? Heck no.

> > >

> > > Explain the EPIC part of the groove rule change. How on earth was is EPIC?

> > > It didn't pan out - so what.

> > >

> > > The New Coke was a marketing fumble, again not EPIC.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Fergs, while I agree with you in the most literal sense as one, what defines “epic” and secondly, “fail,” I can see what N2G meant and it’s a case where you both have validity in your statements depending how one takes them and how one feels about the specific situation, both logically and just as importantly, emotionally(As in I’ve gotta blind dislike on for the USGA?).

> >

> > The other thing is You’re sorta putting N2G into a corner and in this medium, that never ends well?

> >

> > Have a great week Brother?

> > RP

>

> Richard,

> No doubt, I think N2G's dislike for the USGA was demonstrated in the manner of his response. While emotion can certainly drive the urge to "make a point" about the USGA, we must be aware that none of us can do anything about the decisions they make. Sure, as a governing body they do some strange things but they do some really good stuff too. The groove rule is over and done, and the same goes for new coke. The comparison made no sense to me as it didn't relate to anything current.

>

>

>

I reserve the right to criticize any organization if they do something I disagree with. I like a lot of the things the USGA did in the current rules, but they missed the boat too on a few too.

 

The groove rule failed because it didn't change the pro game in any way, pro's laughed at it. Ultimately the biggest impact of the rule is that it forced amateurs to buy new clubs if they wanted to play conforming clubs.

 

Fergs, you're way too intelligent to not be able to relate my comments to the current distance issues. Unless the USGA decides to bifurcate the rules, there's no easy way to "fix" the pro game without alienating the amateurs by rolling back equipment. I watch a lot of golf, the hype on distance is greater than the reality. I don't see these 350 yard drives on every hole that the rollback supporters cite as their concern. Sure at some courses on some holes, the longest guys can get a 350 yard drive but that's not the average or even close to what the majority of the tour can hit.

 

The Coke formula was a classic fail that most of us understand, the comparison is relative because Coke was going to change the soda market with it, just as the Groove rule was going to change the golf game, neither had an impact.

[Forged4ever]

Hahahaha, scr** the rest of ya, as long as I’ve got LowBall, Dan, Fergs and N2G, this baby’s like a runaway freight train and gonna run forever???

 

I love you guys??

 

Have a great week?

RP

[Forged4ever]

> @dlygrisse said:

> In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

> Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

>

> Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

> 80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

>

> Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

>

> Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

 

This article goes to your point I believe?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

 

 

If not, and I’m totally off the reservation and into the trees, just patronize me and I’ll go away??

 

I hope that you’re having a great season DL?

 

My best,

Richard

[iteachgolf]

> @Forged4ever said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

> > Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

> >

> > Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

> > 80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

> >

> > Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

> >

> > Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

>

> This article goes to your point I believe?

>

> https://www.google.com/amp/amp.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

>

>

> If not, and I’m totally off the reservation and into the trees, just patronize me and I’ll go away??

>

> I hope that you’re having a great season DL?

>

> My best,

> Richard

 

Both ignoring how much the ball has changed. If you think the longest driver would average 275 with persimmon and a modern ball I’d love to bet a massive sum of money with you. On a solidly struck drive they’d produce the same ballspeed as a modern driver swung at the same clubhead speed. Also ignoring how modern agronomy and conditioning has changed how much roll they get on your.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @iteachgolf said:

> > @Forged4ever said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

> > > Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

> > >

> > > Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

> > > 80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

> > >

> > > Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

> > >

> > > Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

> >

> > This article goes to your point I believe?

> >

> > https://www.google.com/amp/amp.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

> >

> >

> > If not, and I’m totally off the reservation and into the trees, just patronize me and I’ll go away??

> >

> > I hope that you’re having a great season DL?

> >

> > My best,

> > Richard

>

> Both ignoring how much the ball has changed. If you think the longest driver would average 275 with persimmon and a modern ball I’d love to bet a massive sum of money with you. On a solidly struck drive they’d produce the same ballspeed as a modern driver swung at the same clubhead speed. Also ignoring how modern agronomy and conditioning has changed how much roll they get on your.

 

Don't persimmon heads have a lower COR than modern drivers, though? I recall reading (probably on this site) that it was around 0.77 with persimmon drivers/fibre inserts. Would the same clubhead speed actually produce the same ball speed?

That said, I agree with you that the modern ball is so different from the old ones I used as a junior. I'd actually be interested to see a comparison of modern balls and old balls hit with both modern drivers and persimmon. In particular, I'd like to see how far the old two piece rocks (e.g. Wilson Ultras) perform on both types of drivers.

 

 

 

[gvogel]

> @dlygrisse said:

> In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

> Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

>

> Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

> 80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

>

> Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

>

> Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

 

That's exactly right. In 1981 I watched Tom Watson in the final round at the Masters hit driver, driver to reach the 8th green in two, and driver, four wood to reach 15. These days the guys are hitting mid irons into 15, and last year Spieth hit 3-wood, long iron on 8. It's not about "par", it's about the difficulty of the shot. Or shot values as some call it.

[gvogel]

Thanks, Richard, for starting an epic thread.

[iteachgolf]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @iteachgolf said:

> > > @Forged4ever said:

> > > > @dlygrisse said:

> > > > In 1980, the first year they kept track of the stats, Dan Pohl won with an average drive of 274.3/

> > > > Cameron Champ is averaging 315.7

> > > >

> > > > Tom Watson averaged 266 that year and was considered by many the best player in the world,

> > > > 80 on the list was Johnny Miller at 257.6, JM was regarded by many as the best ball striker in the world.

> > > >

> > > > Chase Wright is 80 on the list this year at 295.8

> > > >

> > > > Gentleman, and ladies....it's basically 40 yards.

> > >

> > > This article goes to your point I believe?

> > >

> > > https://www.google.com/amp/amp.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

> > >

> > >

> > > If not, and I’m totally off the reservation and into the trees, just patronize me and I’ll go away??

> > >

> > > I hope that you’re having a great season DL?

> > >

> > > My best,

> > > Richard

> >

> > Both ignoring how much the ball has changed. If you think the longest driver would average 275 with persimmon and a modern ball I’d love to bet a massive sum of money with you. On a solidly struck drive they’d produce the same ballspeed as a modern driver swung at the same clubhead speed. Also ignoring how modern agronomy and conditioning has changed how much roll they get on your.

>

> Don't persimmon heads have a lower COR than modern drivers, though? I recall reading (probably on this site) that it was around 0.77 with persimmon drivers/fibre inserts. Would the same clubhead speed actually produce the same ball speed?

> That said, I agree with you that the modern ball is so different from the old ones I used as a junior. I'd actually be interested to see a comparison of modern balls and old balls hit with both modern drivers and persimmon. In particular, I'd like to see how far the old two piece rocks (e.g. Wilson Ultras) perform on both types of drivers.

>

>

>

 

Go look at the smash factor produced by Rickie with persimmon. I’ve gotten similar regularly.

[bladehunter]

Not shot at anyone necessarily. Just a general question.

 

If persimmon can attain such a high smash factor , ball speed and distance . Then doesn’t that mean that the oems have been lying to us all more than we already suspected ?

 

It has to be one or the other. New tech either helps or it doesn’t.