Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

[oikos1]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Obee said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Bebsport678 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the OP, the number of years that Daly was the distance leader is astounding.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that John Daly was hitting it over 300 yards years ago wasn't a problem, no one believed that he would make classic courses obsolete. Now that more players can bomb it 300 ocassionally the traditionalist thinks that the sky is falling...

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope again. The issue is that over half the ones hitting it 300 now , wouldn’t in Johns day. They aren’t all new john Daly’s. They are some Tom kites hitting it 300 plus too. What we want is a return of skill for the distance.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > To your comment “What we want is a return of skill for the distance.” But hitting a ball great distance and with accuracy IS a skill and it hasn't gone anywhere. The tech being used today is virtually all the same and the longer hitters of yesteryear (300 yards) would still be the longer hitters of today (320 yards) with todays equipment. And due to basic physics, the longer you hit it (320 vs 300) the more accurate & skillful a player has to be. Hitting 320 today accurately is a hard skill to learn, it’s why players like Tiger & Day have often struggled compared to the games longest/straightest hitters, and they all play the same equipment remember.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > But not everyone today (like yesteryear) can hit the same distances or as accurately. For some players they gain their distance through their greater athleticism (be it fitness, training, age, genetics and/or a combination of them all), while others gain it more through efficient technique alongside those other factors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I just don’t buy the workout equals distance point. Sure you can polish speed. But the DJ , Rory etc are born with what they have. No other way to explain how a tiny guy like Rory hits it so far. Gym time is about flexibility and preventing injury. In other words Maintenance

> > > > > > > > > > > as they age.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Hitting it far is a skill. But I don’t believe it’s near has much of one now as before. 300 with persimmon is next level talent. 300 with today’s ball and driver ? Please the am world is full of guys who can control that.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As to my post above, some players lean more to genetics for their greater distance gains, others to fitness & training, while others lean on developing better technique, some do all of it - but to hit the ball far AND accurate also comes down to the inclusion of great technique, and no one is born with technique or accuracy, it’s developed. Justin Rose has talked about increasing his distance due to increased physical training, Rory has also admitted to increasing distance & greater control through the shot due to undertaking his professional fitness program years back, and many more players have done and do the same. The fact is golf today is a more professional sport top to bottom than ever before and thus attracting and refining more athletes and developing more players into better athletes - even Tiger has referred to this reality today.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sure, 300 yesteryear was next level but today 330-350 is also next level, and there are still many players who can’t hit it 300 today. But for all those that can keep up is a core reason why it’s harder to win today than before.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Find me three examples where someone gained materially more distance due to fitness training. Where you have the person's driving distance before they did fitness training and the number after and it was materially longer. I doubt you can do it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > From my quick look I can’t quote exact before & after distances that you specifically ask for, but all 3 players mentioned below have openly talked about increased distance through fitness and it’s researchable if you care to look.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Here’s a quick quote from Rory’s Fitness Doctor:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > "As his training continued we focused on injury-proofing and increases in strength and power. That translates into other aspects that are important to him, which is greater shot distance and greater control of the club head.”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I remember clearly Rory Mcilroy’s interview on this very topic in 2014 after his 2nd major win that year talking to Skysports about the role of his fitness program over recent years and the impact it’s had on his increased distance and control through the high speed driver swing. Rory also mentioned that these increased distance gains allowed him to not swing 100% every time which also allowed him further greater control.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A similar case watching an interview with Justin Rose & Sean Foley a few years back talking about how his fitness program had helped increase his distance.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tiger Woods has also talked many times about the impact of better athletes & fitness in the game and it’s impact on distance today compared to early 2000s.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That last sentence takes the cake. It is just utter nonsense to say that players today hit it farther than players 20 years ago because of better fitness. It's the equipment.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You know you are wrong, just eat the crow man. It is 100% for sure, distance can be gained with fitness. There is all kinds of evidence out there and you are just playing off of the fact that it is hard to quantify exact amounts of distance gained from JUST fitness.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Before you decided to change it to TOUR players only, I was going to go chat with all of the Super Speed Golf users in the thread I frequent to get their improvement information. I am sure you will say that it isn't fitness and doesn't count anyway.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, just eat the crow, you made a mistake with your challenge and or it was a dishonest challenge and you knew all along you would refute anything found because there would be uncertainty to how much distance was gained or what have you from fitness vs swing technique vs equipment optimization. It is a no brainer that it can increase speed and therefore distance.

> > > > >

> > > > > More nonsense speculation. All the gains of the Champions Tour players who hit it farther now than they did 20+years ago must from their fitness regimens in your view ...

> > > >

> > > > Good lord. It's both. They hit it farther than they used to due to equipment. They are holding on to their distance because of fitness. But give they same fitness regimen to a 25 year old, and he's going to swing the club appreciably faster than without the fitness. And there are real world examples of this both with pros and ams (as has been pointed out to the doubters time and time again).

> > > >

> > > > Someone mentioned a while back that "Phil changed his swing" and that's (maybe) why he picked up his distance. He's ALWAYS tinkering. And always ends up where he was before -- with his own, quite unique, golf swing.

> > > >

> > > > Back to the Champions Tour guys: If you don't think that many of the Champions Tour guys of today workout far more than they did in their youth in order to KEEP the distance they the new equipment has given them in order to stay on that gravy train of a tour, I don't know what to tell you.

> > > >

> > > > Bottom line: Fitness (and specifically sport-specific fitness) helps athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster than they ever have been ... ON AVERAGE. The fastest, best, strongest of yesteryear would absolutely still compete with the fastest, best, strongest of today (Nolan Ryan vs. Verlander, et al.) It's just there are far, far more guys who hit it far, throw it fast than there used to be -- due to fitness.

> > > >

> > > > The ball and the equipment allow people to hit it farther than they ever have. Combine that with the money in pro golf attracting TRUE athletes in much greater numbers than ever along with sport-specific fitness, and you have an enormous gap now between the swing speed "Haves" and "Have nots."

> > > >

> > > > Simple really...

> > > >

> > > > Or not. ;-)

> > >

> > >

> > > One reaction to your comment might be to doubt it or to argue some of the details.

> > >

> > > That is not my reaction. My reaction is to tell you that it doesn’t matter. It’s not personal. It’s not that you don’t matter. Or that your assertions don’t matter. And it isn’t a matter of my own opinion about you or your views.

> > >

> > > No; the point is that the Ruling Bodies have already decided that they don’t care whether any further significant distance increases are related to fitness or not. They aren’t doing any fitness studies. They are doing a distance study.

> > >

> >

> > And from how you have presented things, it sounds like it's going to be a dandy of a study. How exactly does one study "distance"?

>

> Well I am sure they employ various tools in their study.

 

That was a bit tongue in cheek. 15th has repeatedly stated the USGA doesn't care about fitness, agronomy, and any other number of variables that could possibly be related to "distance" gains. You're right though, I'm sure their various tools will get to the bottom of it.

[oikos1]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> >

> > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

>

> Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

>

> I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

>

> So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

>

> A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

 

So wait. You're arguing the shorter hitter has an advantage and you want to take that away?

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> >

> > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

>

> Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

>

> I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

>

> So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

>

> A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

 

Aren't you forgetting though about the long guy's other advantage? Shorter irons into greens, more stopping power. Same distance away from green the longer guy can take less club or swing less hard with more club.

 

Edit: Also, par 5s usually longer guy advantage still.

[bladehunter]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > >

> > > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

> >

> > Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

> >

> > I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

> >

> > So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

> >

> > A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

>

> Aren't you forgetting though about the long guy's other advantage? Shorter irons into greens, more stopping power. Same distance away from green the longer guy can take less club or swing less hard with more club.

>

> Edit: Also, par 5s usually longer guy advantage still.

 

Sure. But I’m talking wanting to see a dominant player , tiger and jack enjoyed these dominance’s from all points. It’s not possible now.

[bladehunter]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > >

> > > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

> >

> > Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

> >

> > I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

> >

> > So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

> >

> > A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

>

> So wait. You're arguing the shorter hitter has an advantage and you want to take that away?

 

 

Bigger piece of techs help. And yes. Absolutely. It should be about ability. This isn’t a net comp we are talking about. Not everyone gets the trophy.

 

 

I realize it’s an unpopular opinion because it’s a minority thought. But if you want to see accurate and pure competition it’s a fair point.

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > > >

> > > > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

> > >

> > > Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

> > >

> > > I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

> > >

> > > So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

> > >

> > > A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

> >

> > Aren't you forgetting though about the long guy's other advantage? Shorter irons into greens, more stopping power. Same distance away from green the longer guy can take less club or swing less hard with more club.

> >

> > Edit: Also, par 5s usually longer guy advantage still.

>

> Sure. But I’m talking wanting to see a dominant player , tiger and jack enjoyed these dominance’s from all points. It’s not possible now.

 

But I thought you said Tiger dominated because of his superb iron play? Or wasn't that you?

[bladehunter]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > > > >

> > > > > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

> > > >

> > > > Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

> > > >

> > > > I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

> > > >

> > > > So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

> > > >

> > > > A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

> > >

> > > Aren't you forgetting though about the long guy's other advantage? Shorter irons into greens, more stopping power. Same distance away from green the longer guy can take less club or swing less hard with more club.

> > >

> > > Edit: Also, par 5s usually longer guy advantage still.

> >

> > Sure. But I’m talking wanting to see a dominant player , tiger and jack enjoyed these dominance’s from all points. It’s not possible now.

>

> But I thought you said Tiger dominated because of his superb iron play? Or wasn't that you?

 

That’s now. Now that he can’t dominate he can still win due to his iron play. Everybody doesn’t have both. Him included now.

[oikos1]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > > >

> > > > and what is the problem with that? Can you expand on this point and why you feel it is bad for the game? Bad enough to warrant a rollback of equipment.

> > >

> > > Well. I think In competition terms . To me it’s a form of handicapping. I personally feel that the idea that the long guys get more out of tech is wrong. And I’m not The only one ( tiger has been quoted on this too ). I believe the short and mid guys get more pound for pound so to speak. And it’s turned the game into a more level playing field. And it’s artificial. How so you say ? Distance with a driver isn’t a linear type thing. Certain spin numbers at certain speed , produce different quantities of result. Not just in total number but relative to the speed as well if you change launch etc

> > >

> > > I believe there is a sweet spot around 110-115 mph where a guy can get the launch up and the spin around 2300 ish and carry the ball effectively as far as most any 120 plus guy can go and control it. Inside 15 yards less say for a guess. Why or how you say ? The 120-125 guy is not ever going to try to launch it as high as the 110 guy. Why ? Control. CarryIng it 315 plus is exponentially more risk than carrying it 290-300. Why ? Farther you go in distance the farther wide that miss goes.

> > >

> > > So think of it like a scale down the fairway in a cone shape. The length being distance and the wide end of the cone being the longest guys. The cone narrows as it shortens. This is why I say “ effectively”. On a narrow course like the long guy has to hit less drivers. Which means he’s now just as short as the mid guy behind him. But has to hit a smaller club face on less tee to do it. You’ve essentially taken the long guys dominance. Today’s player doesn’t scale correctly to most courses.

> > >

> > > A guy like Rory would have been the next tiger for sure if he’d have played from say 1996 to 2005. He’s still longer now. But he has to use it on longer courses . From another angle. You could make him play a 975d and he’d drop back 12 yards or so. But give that driver to Kevin Na and he loses 30-40. The gap from long to mid pack would be much wider.

> >

> > So wait. You're arguing the shorter hitter has an advantage and you want to take that away?

>

>

> Bigger piece of techs help. And yes. Absolutely. It should be about ability. This isn’t a net comp we are talking about. Not everyone gets the trophy.

>

>

> I realize it’s an unpopular opinion because it’s a minority thought. But if you want to see accurate and pure competition it’s a fair point.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure only one guy gets the trophy at the end of a tournament.

 

So this then begs the question: What's your baseline for "technological advances" to ensure that the dominant player rises to the top?

[rangersgoalie]

> @airjammer said:

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

>

> Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

>

> You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

>

> Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

 

While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

[bladehunter]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @airjammer said:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> >

> > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> >

> > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> >

> > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

>

> While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

 

I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

[Obee]

> @LICC said:

> > @Obee said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Obee said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Bebsport678 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the OP, the number of years that Daly was the distance leader is astounding.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that John Daly was hitting it over 300 yards years ago wasn't a problem, no one believed that he would make classic courses obsolete. Now that more players can bomb it 300 ocassionally the traditionalist thinks that the sky is falling...

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope again. The issue is that over half the ones hitting it 300 now , wouldn’t in Johns day. They aren’t all new john Daly’s. They are some Tom kites hitting it 300 plus too. What we want is a return of skill for the distance.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > To your comment “What we want is a return of skill for the distance.” But hitting a ball great distance and with accuracy IS a skill and it hasn't gone anywhere. The tech being used today is virtually all the same and the longer hitters of yesteryear (300 yards) would still be the longer hitters of today (320 yards) with todays equipment. And due to basic physics, the longer you hit it (320 vs 300) the more accurate & skillful a player has to be. Hitting 320 today accurately is a hard skill to learn, it’s why players like Tiger & Day have often struggled compared to the games longest/straightest hitters, and they all play the same equipment remember.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > But not everyone today (like yesteryear) can hit the same distances or as accurately. For some players they gain their distance through their greater athleticism (be it fitness, training, age, genetics and/or a combination of them all), while others gain it more through efficient technique alongside those other factors.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I just don’t buy the workout equals distance point. Sure you can polish speed. But the DJ , Rory etc are born with what they have. No other way to explain how a tiny guy like Rory hits it so far. Gym time is about flexibility and preventing injury. In other words Maintenance

> > > > > > > > > > > as they age.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Hitting it far is a skill. But I don’t believe it’s near has much of one now as before. 300 with persimmon is next level talent. 300 with today’s ball and driver ? Please the am world is full of guys who can control that.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As to my post above, some players lean more to genetics for their greater distance gains, others to fitness & training, while others lean on developing better technique, some do all of it - but to hit the ball far AND accurate also comes down to the inclusion of great technique, and no one is born with technique or accuracy, it’s developed. Justin Rose has talked about increasing his distance due to increased physical training, Rory has also admitted to increasing distance & greater control through the shot due to undertaking his professional fitness program years back, and many more players have done and do the same. The fact is golf today is a more professional sport top to bottom than ever before and thus attracting and refining more athletes and developing more players into better athletes - even Tiger has referred to this reality today.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sure, 300 yesteryear was next level but today 330-350 is also next level, and there are still many players who can’t hit it 300 today. But for all those that can keep up is a core reason why it’s harder to win today than before.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Find me three examples where someone gained materially more distance due to fitness training. Where you have the person's driving distance before they did fitness training and the number after and it was materially longer. I doubt you can do it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > From my quick look I can’t quote exact before & after distances that you specifically ask for, but all 3 players mentioned below have openly talked about increased distance through fitness and it’s researchable if you care to look.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Here’s a quick quote from Rory’s Fitness Doctor:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > "As his training continued we focused on injury-proofing and increases in strength and power. That translates into other aspects that are important to him, which is greater shot distance and greater control of the club head.”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I remember clearly Rory Mcilroy’s interview on this very topic in 2014 after his 2nd major win that year talking to Skysports about the role of his fitness program over recent years and the impact it’s had on his increased distance and control through the high speed driver swing. Rory also mentioned that these increased distance gains allowed him to not swing 100% every time which also allowed him further greater control.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A similar case watching an interview with Justin Rose & Sean Foley a few years back talking about how his fitness program had helped increase his distance.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tiger Woods has also talked many times about the impact of better athletes & fitness in the game and it’s impact on distance today compared to early 2000s.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That last sentence takes the cake. It is just utter nonsense to say that players today hit it farther than players 20 years ago because of better fitness. It's the equipment.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You know you are wrong, just eat the crow man. It is 100% for sure, distance can be gained with fitness. There is all kinds of evidence out there and you are just playing off of the fact that it is hard to quantify exact amounts of distance gained from JUST fitness.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Before you decided to change it to TOUR players only, I was going to go chat with all of the Super Speed Golf users in the thread I frequent to get their improvement information. I am sure you will say that it isn't fitness and doesn't count anyway.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, just eat the crow, you made a mistake with your challenge and or it was a dishonest challenge and you knew all along you would refute anything found because there would be uncertainty to how much distance was gained or what have you from fitness vs swing technique vs equipment optimization. It is a no brainer that it can increase speed and therefore distance.

> > > > >

> > > > > More nonsense speculation. All the gains of the Champions Tour players who hit it farther now than they did 20+years ago must from their fitness regimens in your view ...

> > > >

> > > > Good lord. It's both. They hit it farther than they used to due to equipment. They are holding on to their distance because of fitness. But give they same fitness regimen to a 25 year old, and he's going to swing the club appreciably faster than without the fitness. And there are real world examples of this both with pros and ams (as has been pointed out to the doubters time and time again).

> > > >

> > > > Someone mentioned a while back that "Phil changed his swing" and that's (maybe) why he picked up his distance. He's ALWAYS tinkering. And always ends up where he was before -- with his own, quite unique, golf swing.

> > > >

> > > > Back to the Champions Tour guys: If you don't think that many of the Champions Tour guys of today workout far more than they did in their youth in order to KEEP the distance they the new equipment has given them in order to stay on that gravy train of a tour, I don't know what to tell you.

> > > >

> > > > Bottom line: Fitness (and specifically sport-specific fitness) helps athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster than they ever have been ... ON AVERAGE. The fastest, best, strongest of yesteryear would absolutely still compete with the fastest, best, strongest of today (Nolan Ryan vs. Verlander, et al.) It's just there are far, far more guys who hit it far, throw it fast than there used to be -- due to fitness.

> > > >

> > > > The ball and the equipment allow people to hit it farther than they ever have. Combine that with the money in pro golf attracting TRUE athletes in much greater numbers than ever along with sport-specific fitness, and you have an enormous gap now between the swing speed "Haves" and "Have nots."

> > > >

> > > > Simple really...

> > > >

> > > > Or not. ;-)

> > >

> > > Oh goodness, you have zero facts to support this crazed theory. Distance gains are 95%+ from the equipment.

> >

> > Curious, though, as to what you think my "crazed theory" is. I agree with you that equipment is the prime driver of the distance explosion.

>

> You said more people hit it greater distances today because of fitness. Lunacy.

 

Sigh...

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @airjammer said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > >

> > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > >

> > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > >

> > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> >

> > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

>

> I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

 

That is an interesting question. So myself, much, much less talented than any pro out there can manage to hit a persimmon with around 2k spin, 13-15 vertical launch and plenty of ball speed to carry 300 yards a few times in a row, wouldn't you think a pro could manage to do it repeatedly? This is with a modern ball of course. I can't possibly speak to any of the old ones (I just bought some professional 100s to test, never used but they shrunk a lot and weigh significantly less than they should, oh well, I am not surprised).

[rangersgoalie]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @airjammer said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > >

> > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > >

> > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > >

> > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> >

> > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

>

> I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

 

I believe so Blade, but it's just belief. The efficiency of the best players is pretty astounding.

Tiger came out with the Cobra and the Titleist Professional, and was basically overpowering. He hit it higher and was not super spinny. Most players were not launching it like he did. And like many believe now, nobody back then believed anyone could dominate the game due to a) depth of fields and B) the equipment evening things out. We honestly had many of the same conversations until TW blew that all apart.' And when he did, players took notice.

 

As Tiger started pounding on the best players, players started changing their approach to things. More aggressive swings, height AND distance, fitness, to find a way to keep up or stay relevant. The equipment companies also were looking at things differently and the "ideal" ball flight adjusted up with less spin.

The driver heads from the late 90's and 2000 were big but not huge. In fact, many players didnt want the huge heads.

 

So, very UN scientifically, yes, unless the driver max COR changed, even a smaller driver would, IMO, still produce distances that would bother the proponents of a rollback. Watching the 3 woods today, or hybrids even, these guys just don't miss by that much.

One thing thats funny to me, it sure seems like there are more WAY wild drives on tv, but maybe that's me and my old guy nostalgia. I don't remember the heroes of my youth missing by miles like I see now. COnsidering the clubs and balls go "dead straight" now :)

 

I mentioned at another point, I'd love to see a taylor MAde Burner from the mid 90's with the correct launch and todays COR tested. I think it would surprise how little difference it would make just from shrinking the size, but little change could matter too.

[OrangeGravy]

> @smashdn said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > So, as someone who has offered this “fake question” as a concern against bifurcation, I’ll explain a little.

> > Wherever the line is drawn, there is a group of players in competition that desires to move up to that level. Moving up a level is always tough, and many do not succeed.

> > But if a top level junior in your scenario has been playing, practicing, and developing a game to be one of the best juniors, and then suddenly has to play a shortened ball, they will also need to make some adjustments to their games and clubs.

> > I can’t imagine a freshman having to play a different game against upper classmen who not only have the normal edge of age and experience, but the added advantage of having spent the time dialing in their equipment and games to suit that equipment. I’ve lersonally seen students ruin themselves with new clubs that were “professionally fit” but still performed differently which led to poor results and a long slump or worse.

> > Myself, I made the rookie mistake of signing with a different company that offered a nice deal, and the clubs get awesome, but I didn’t have the knowledge to recognize the subtle difference in spin back then that killed a season. When the Kobe earthquake hit, or destroyed the Maxfli plant. On tour there were only a few of us playing the HT. Maxfli made HTs for us in South Carolina and we all struggled with the difference until Maxfli relented and brought the the Royal Maxfli ball over to the USA for us. The slight cover difference totally changed the performance of the ball we had used for a couple years.

> >

> > Bifurcation (in one mans opinion) would allow one group of people believing this needs to happen, to force a segment of the golf population to change the development of their games while often times leaving the group forcing the change with no change or consequence.

> > So, a very personal reason why I am against bifurcation. I’ve witnessed self chosen equipment changes ruin players. Hate to see forced changes on one segment.

> >

> > FWIW :smile:

>

> Wouldn't that be the same as a college baseball pitcher pitching to hitters with aluminum bats versus wooden? Or a high school football player adapting to college football rules?

>

> There will certainly be a learning curve but I don't think there is a true disadvantage as every high school senior would be making that adaptation. At that point it becomes who works the hardest to get the most out of the new spec ball and who can mold the best game around it. The advantage of distance is not linear. The advantage due to a reduction in distance is also not linear. We have years of evidence that shows when golfers weren't capable of hitting it as far (reliably and accurately) overall accuracy was more important percentage wise in golf. A short hitter can be accurate. A long hitter can be accurate. All other things being equal between them a long, accurate player will still have an advantage over a short accurate player. But a long hitter with average accuracy will not have or have as large an advantage over a short and highly accurate hitter. The balance is what interests me. I don't really consider it balance or parity when the top 15 guys in distance are vying for the win week in and week out. It is balance and parity when the top ten guys in distance, the top ten guys in putting, the top ten guys in scrambling and the top ten guys in long irons all have about an equal change at winning. When your name pops up in multiple of those lists, then you have a well rounded, excellent golfer.

 

Baseball also uses a different ball from little league-high school-college-pro. The seems are different at each level and the MLB fiddles with the ball at the minor league level (testing ground)

[OrangeGravy]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > So, as someone who has offered this “fake question” as a concern against bifurcation, I’ll explain a little.

> > > Wherever the line is drawn, there is a group of players in competition that desires to move up to that level. Moving up a level is always tough, and many do not succeed.

> > > But if a top level junior in your scenario has been playing, practicing, and developing a game to be one of the best juniors, and then suddenly has to play a shortened ball, they will also need to make some adjustments to their games and clubs.

> > > I can’t imagine a freshman having to play a different game against upper classmen who not only have the normal edge of age and experience, but the added advantage of having spent the time dialing in their equipment and games to suit that equipment. I’ve lersonally seen students ruin themselves with new clubs that were “professionally fit” but still performed differently which led to poor results and a long slump or worse.

> > > Myself, I made the rookie mistake of signing with a different company that offered a nice deal, and the clubs get awesome, but I didn’t have the knowledge to recognize the subtle difference in spin back then that killed a season. When the Kobe earthquake hit, or destroyed the Maxfli plant. On tour there were only a few of us playing the HT. Maxfli made HTs for us in South Carolina and we all struggled with the difference until Maxfli relented and brought the the Royal Maxfli ball over to the USA for us. The slight cover difference totally changed the performance of the ball we had used for a couple years.

> > >

> > > Bifurcation (in one mans opinion) would allow one group of people believing this needs to happen, to force a segment of the golf population to change the development of their games while often times leaving the group forcing the change with no change or consequence.

> > > So, a very personal reason why I am against bifurcation. I’ve witnessed self chosen equipment changes ruin players. Hate to see forced changes on one segment.

> > >

> > > FWIW :smile:

> >

> > Wouldn't that be the same as a college baseball pitcher pitching to hitters with aluminum bats versus wooden? Or a high school football player adapting to college football rules?

> >

> > There will certainly be a learning curve but I don't think there is a true disadvantage as every high school senior would be making that adaptation. At that point it becomes who works the hardest to get the most out of the new spec ball and who can mold the best game around it. The advantage of distance is not linear. The advantage due to a reduction in distance is also not linear. We have years of evidence that shows when golfers weren't capable of hitting it as far (reliably and accurately) overall accuracy was more important percentage wise in golf. A short hitter can be accurate. A long hitter can be accurate. All other things being equal between them a long, accurate player will still have an advantage over a short accurate player. But a long hitter with average accuracy will not have or have as large an advantage over a short and highly accurate hitter. The balance is what interests me. I don't really consider it balance or parity when the top 15 guys in distance are vying for the win week in and week out. It is balance and parity when the top ten guys in distance, the top ten guys in putting, the top ten guys in scrambling and the top ten guys in long irons all have about an equal change at winning. When your name pops up in multiple of those lists, then you have a well rounded, excellent golfer.

>

> I don't believe it is the same as the bat issue. WHile the aluminum gives a greater advantage of distance, batters are still swinging a bat to hit a ball in reaction. Pitchers are trying to get the batter to miss. Of course the ball reacts differently off the bat, but I'd really like to know what findamental changes in mechanics, or anything has to change. The fundamentals of a slowed down ball would change a lot for a golfer. I don't really know enough about baseball to be fair,but you're , not swinging the bat to position a ball within a few yards of a desired distance. Or making it curve an amount into a target, or react a certain way when it lands.

> Any ball that flies differently changes shot selection, wind effects, chipping, pitching, pretty much everything.

> It's why I'd rather see a roll back than bifurcation.

>

> But I also still believe we are trying to change the games of the very small percentage of golfers that should not impact the courses of the average golfers.

 

Someone may have answered this already. Apologies if so.

 

The Aluminum bat/ wood bat difference is very similar to modern driver/ Persimmon driver. A wood bat has a sweet spot about 2.5" long. It starts on the top end about an inch or two from the cap depending on what style bat you use. That's it. An aluminum bat (the original ones) had a sweet spot from just above the grip almost to the cap depending on how strong you are. You could miss horribly with an aluminum bat and still hit it out if you're strong or at least serve a line drive past the infield. Make that same swing with wood and the line drive doesn't leave the infield. The home run is an easy pop fly. Either of those misses could end up in a broken bat depending on where you made contact. To have power with wood, you had to have a solid fundamental swing uses your legs/core. With aluminum you can have power even with an armsy/handsy swing. There's a reason that almost all levels of baseball use wood bats in practice. It's forces kids to learn to properly swing a bat. College players play summer league ball using strictly wood bats to show scouts that they can handle them and that their power translates if they're that kind of player. They've since drastically muted the metal bats solely due to safety concerns. Some of our kids prefer to use wood these days because they've restricted the metal bats so much.

[OrangeGravy]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @Obee said:

> > A quick add-on:

> >

> > I'm a 52 year old short-hitting competitive amateur, and I love the old game AND the new game. I started with Persimmon and balata and I still love and play the game today. And there are still plenty of courses where I can compete against MUCH longer hitters. I do have to choose my qualifying sites carefully, but the game is still absolutely enjoyable for me in every way, and I don't begrudge the young guys their length one bit. Makes it that much more enjoyable when I can manage to beat them... :-)

>

> Obee! What’s going on? Curious what you thought about this.

>

> I mentioned that if you actually look at major winners over the past 4 years, it’s pretty even long vs not long hitters.

>

> What you think about Augusta 13th though? Seems like that hole is no longer being played as intended. Just using it as an obvious argument for how guys are destroying course with length.

>

>

 

But are the "not long" hitters really not long or just not as long as the longest guys.

[BarnbougleDunes03]

I hope LICC is sitting down - I reached out directly to Denis Pugh, Francesco Molinari’s recently retired swing coach and asked him if the distance increases he and Molinari gained were a result of the Fitness Program they designed for him, and Denis kindly replied back to me saying:

 

“Fitness plays a massive part” - Denis Pugh

 

So confirmed proof straight from the horses mouth, Molinari’s own swing coach admitting “Fitness plays a massive part” in their increasing distance.

 

No doubt you’ll attempt to move the goal posts once again.

[LICC]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @airjammer said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > >

> > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > >

> > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > >

> > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> >

> > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

>

> I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

 

Don’t you think this idea of today’s players maximize their swings better than those of years ago because of trackman is overblown? It’s not like pros years ago didn’t understand their ball flights and make adjustments. Do you think Jack Nicklaus didn’t maximize his swing? Ben Hogan?

[LICC]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @airjammer said:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> >

> > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> >

> > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> >

> > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

>

> While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

 

More unverifiable speculation. Equipment is practically ALL of it, not part of it.

[LICC]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > @airjammer said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > > >

> > > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > > >

> > > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > > >

> > > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> > >

> > > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

> >

> > I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

>

> I believe so Blade, but it's just belief. The efficiency of the best players is pretty astounding.

> Tiger came out with the Cobra and the Titleist Professional, and was basically overpowering. He hit it higher and was not super spinny. Most players were not launching it like he did. And like many believe now, nobody back then believed anyone could dominate the game due to a) depth of fields and B) the equipment evening things out. We honestly had many of the same conversations until TW blew that all apart.' And when he did, players took notice.

>

> As Tiger started pounding on the best players, players started changing their approach to things. More aggressive swings, height AND distance, fitness, to find a way to keep up or stay relevant. The equipment companies also were looking at things differently and the "ideal" ball flight adjusted up with less spin.

> The driver heads from the late 90's and 2000 were big but not huge. In fact, many players didnt want the huge heads.

>

> So, very UN scientifically, yes, unless the driver max COR changed, even a smaller driver would, IMO, still produce distances that would bother the proponents of a rollback. Watching the 3 woods today, or hybrids even, these guys just don't miss by that much.

> One thing thats funny to me, it sure seems like there are more WAY wild drives on tv, but maybe that's me and my old guy nostalgia. I don't remember the heroes of my youth missing by miles like I see now. COnsidering the clubs and balls go "dead straight" now :)

>

> I mentioned at another point, I'd love to see a taylor MAde Burner from the mid 90's with the correct launch and todays COR tested. I think it would surprise how little difference it would make just from shrinking the size, but little change could matter too.

 

Players didn’t change their swings because Tiger was pounding it. They changed to more aggressive swings because new equipment allowed them to do so with less fear of bad results on non-perfect hits.

[LICC]

> @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> I hope LICC is sitting down - I reached out directly to Denis Pugh, Francesco Molinari’s recently retired swing coach and asked him if the distance increases he and Molinari gained were a result of the Fitness Program they designed for him, and Denis kindly replied back to me saying:

>

> “Fitness plays a massive part” - Denis Pugh

>

> So confirmed proof straight from the horses mouth, Molinari’s own swing coach admitting “Fitness plays a massive part” in their increasing distance.

>

> No doubt you’ll attempt to move the goal posts once again.

 

Meaningless. What else was he going to say? It was the swing changes, not because all of a sudden Molinari began working out.

[airjammer]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @airjammer said:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> >

> > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> >

> > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> >

> > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

>

> While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

 

They aren’t hitting it straighter than ever they are hitting it farther than ever. That’s the bias the ball, equipment, and powers that be have created. That’s what we are arguing about.

 

The usga, pga tour, European tour are in a world of hurt and they know it. They hype up distance without being able to continue it forever. The entertainment product Is diminishing before their very eyes and they a desperate.

 

 

 

[BarnbougleDunes03]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > @airjammer said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > > >

> > > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > > >

> > > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > > >

> > > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> > >

> > > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

> >

> > I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

>

> That is an interesting question. So myself, much, much less talented than any pro out there can manage to hit a persimmon with around 2k spin, 13-15 vertical launch and plenty of ball speed to carry 300 yards a few times in a row, wouldn't you think a pro could manage to do it repeatedly? This is with a modern ball of course. I can't possibly speak to any of the old ones (I just bought some professional 100s to test, never used but they shrunk a lot and weigh significantly less than they should, oh well, I am not surprised).

 

To your point about Golfers focusing on trying to hit it harder to increase distance, Molinari admits this being a key factor behind him gaining 20 yards in 3 years when declaring “I took the brakes off.” Aided with a specially designed Fitness Program in this distance pursuit, they were able to achieve it steadily and organically.

 

“Molinari has spent a lot of time with performance coach Dave Alred getting stronger and more flexible. Their work is evident in the power Molinari can generate with his legs, Pugh says. “Power doesn’t come from technique, it comes from physique,” he says. “The goal was to get him as strong as possible to create more power in his swing. But we had to make sure his technique didn’t block that newfound energy from being utilized.”

[smashdn]

> @Titleist99 said:

> If a player can hit a drive 320 yards off the tee more power to him but if he miss the fairway he should be serverly punished. Golf is a game of stratagy, If there is no penalty for wayward drives then you might as well flail away. If the risk out weigh the reward the player will take the driver out of their own hands....

 

You don't say.

 

Is it more or less strategic to choose between whether or not you want to take on a bunker for advantage or hitting it far and potentially into the rough?

[oikos1]

> @airjammer said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @airjammer said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > >

> > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > >

> > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > >

> > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> >

> > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

>

> They aren’t hitting it straighter than ever they are hitting it farther than ever. That’s the bias the ball, equipment, and powers that be have created. That’s what we are arguing about.

>

> The usga, pga tour, European tour are in a world of hurt and they know it. They hype up distance without being able to continue it forever. The entertainment product Is diminishing before their very eyes and they a desperate.

>

>

>

 

Nothing like randomly making **** up:

 

"NBC Sports has recorded its highest viewership for a PGA Tour season in 12 years, with an average 3.6 million tuning into its golf coverage every minute throughout 2018."

 

"Continuing a season-long trend, PGA Tour ratings hit another multi-year high last weekend. It was the 11th of the last 12 PGA rounds on broadcast television to hit a multi-year high in ratings and/or viewership. For the season, 18 of 24 have hit a multi-year high. Of the six exceptions, four aired opposite the Olympics."

 

 

http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/nbc-pga-tour-viewership-tiger-woods

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2018/04/pga-tour-ratings-heritage-cbs/

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @Bebsport678 said:

> > > > > > > > In the OP, the number of years that Daly was the distance leader is astounding.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The fact that John Daly was hitting it over 300 yards years ago wasn't a problem, no one believed that he would make classic courses obsolete. Now that more players can bomb it 300 ocassionally the traditionalist thinks that the sky is falling...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nope again. The issue is that over half the ones hitting it 300 now , wouldn’t in Johns day. They aren’t all new john Daly’s. They are some Tom kites hitting it 300 plus too. What we want is a return of skill for the distance.

> > > > >

> > > > > To your comment “What we want is a return of skill for the distance.” But hitting a ball great distance and with accuracy IS a skill and it hasn't gone anywhere. The tech being used today is virtually all the same and the longer hitters of yesteryear (300 yards) would still be the longer hitters of today (320 yards) with todays equipment. And due to basic physics, the longer you hit it (320 vs 300) the more accurate & skillful a player has to be. Hitting 320 today accurately is a hard skill to learn, it’s why players like Tiger & Day have often struggled compared to the games longest/straightest hitters, and they all play the same equipment remember.

> > > > >

> > > > > But not everyone today (like yesteryear) can hit the same distances or as accurately. For some players they gain their distance through their greater athleticism (be it fitness, training, age, genetics and/or a combination of them all), while others gain it more through efficient technique alongside those other factors.

> > > >

> > > > I just don’t buy the workout equals distance point. Sure you can polish speed. But the DJ , Rory etc are born with what they have. No other way to explain how a tiny guy like Rory hits it so far. Gym time is about flexibility and preventing injury. In other words Maintenance

> > > > as they age.

> > > >

> > > > Sure. Hitting it far is a skill. But I don’t believe it’s near has much of one now as before. 300 with persimmon is next level talent. 300 with today’s ball and driver ? Please the am world is full of guys who can control that.

> > > >

> > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > >

> > > As to my post above, some players lean more to genetics for their greater distance gains, others to fitness & training, while others lean on developing better technique, some do all of it - but to hit the ball far AND accurate also comes down to the inclusion of great technique, and no one is born with technique or accuracy, it’s developed. Justin Rose has talked about increasing his distance due to increased physical training, Rory has also admitted to increasing distance & greater control through the shot due to undertaking his professional fitness program years back, and many more players have done and do the same. The fact is golf today is a more professional sport top to bottom than ever before and thus attracting and refining more athletes and developing more players into better athletes - even Tiger has referred to this reality today.

> > >

> > > Sure, 300 yesteryear was next level but today 330-350 is also next level, and there are still many players who can’t hit it 300 today. But for all those that can keep up is a core reason why it’s harder to win today than before.

> >

> > Find me three examples where someone gained materially more distance due to fitness training. Where you have the person's driving distance before they did fitness training and the number after and it was materially longer. I doubt you can do it.

>

> I can help some with this, Rory has obtainable numbers. Went from around 111 mph with the driver to 120+ if memory serves me, will have to do some digging to verify. Phil also but that will be much harder to prove. I am a firm believer thought that everyone has a natural limit and that limit is pretty high. Its just a technique and training thing, then once you hit a ceiling, hitting the weights and doing golf specific workouts can help raise that ceiling. It has the added benefit of helping prevent injury. A guy on Youtube, SAS golf is the channel I think, is working towards professional long drive competition. He started out in the 170s (I think it was, will have to check) with his driver ball speed and through training, technique, and the gym (which he said helped him a lot) he has reached 190s. Definitely a chunk of that improvement is from his workout regiment and he is a smaller guy.

>

> Edit: I should probably ask you what you mean by fitness training.

 

Rory McIlroy averaged 313 this past year. Way back early in his career in 2012, with a Titleist driver, he averaged 310. So, no, fitness didn't add length for Rory. Fine tuning the driver/ball added 3 yards.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > @airjammer said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > > >

> > > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > > >

> > > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > > >

> > > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> > >

> > > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

> >

> > I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

>

> That is an interesting question. So myself, much, much less talented than any pro out there can manage to hit a persimmon with around 2k spin, 13-15 vertical launch and plenty of ball speed to carry 300 yards a few times in a row, wouldn't you think a pro could manage to do it repeatedly? This is with a modern ball of course. I can't possibly speak to any of the old ones (I just bought some professional 100s to test, never used but they shrunk a lot and weigh significantly less than they should, oh well, I am not surprised).

 

If you carry persimmon drivers 300 yards, you are longer than most all Tour pros.

[LICC]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Bebsport678 said:

> > > > > > > > > In the OP, the number of years that Daly was the distance leader is astounding.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The fact that John Daly was hitting it over 300 yards years ago wasn't a problem, no one believed that he would make classic courses obsolete. Now that more players can bomb it 300 ocassionally the traditionalist thinks that the sky is falling...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nope again. The issue is that over half the ones hitting it 300 now , wouldn’t in Johns day. They aren’t all new john Daly’s. They are some Tom kites hitting it 300 plus too. What we want is a return of skill for the distance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To your comment “What we want is a return of skill for the distance.” But hitting a ball great distance and with accuracy IS a skill and it hasn't gone anywhere. The tech being used today is virtually all the same and the longer hitters of yesteryear (300 yards) would still be the longer hitters of today (320 yards) with todays equipment. And due to basic physics, the longer you hit it (320 vs 300) the more accurate & skillful a player has to be. Hitting 320 today accurately is a hard skill to learn, it’s why players like Tiger & Day have often struggled compared to the games longest/straightest hitters, and they all play the same equipment remember.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But not everyone today (like yesteryear) can hit the same distances or as accurately. For some players they gain their distance through their greater athleticism (be it fitness, training, age, genetics and/or a combination of them all), while others gain it more through efficient technique alongside those other factors.

> > > > >

> > > > > I just don’t buy the workout equals distance point. Sure you can polish speed. But the DJ , Rory etc are born with what they have. No other way to explain how a tiny guy like Rory hits it so far. Gym time is about flexibility and preventing injury. In other words Maintenance

> > > > > as they age.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure. Hitting it far is a skill. But I don’t believe it’s near has much of one now as before. 300 with persimmon is next level talent. 300 with today’s ball and driver ? Please the am world is full of guys who can control that.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m talking relative distance. My issue isn’t with the long hitters. It’s the medium and short knockers that are keeping up. I believe they have a much easier time keeping up now vs in days past.

> > > >

> > > > As to my post above, some players lean more to genetics for their greater distance gains, others to fitness & training, while others lean on developing better technique, some do all of it - but to hit the ball far AND accurate also comes down to the inclusion of great technique, and no one is born with technique or accuracy, it’s developed. Justin Rose has talked about increasing his distance due to increased physical training, Rory has also admitted to increasing distance & greater control through the shot due to undertaking his professional fitness program years back, and many more players have done and do the same. The fact is golf today is a more professional sport top to bottom than ever before and thus attracting and refining more athletes and developing more players into better athletes - even Tiger has referred to this reality today.

> > > >

> > > > Sure, 300 yesteryear was next level but today 330-350 is also next level, and there are still many players who can’t hit it 300 today. But for all those that can keep up is a core reason why it’s harder to win today than before.

> > >

> > > Find me three examples where someone gained materially more distance due to fitness training. Where you have the person's driving distance before they did fitness training and the number after and it was materially longer. I doubt you can do it.

> >

> > I can help some with this, Rory has obtainable numbers. Went from around 111 mph with the driver to 120+ if memory serves me, will have to do some digging to verify. Phil also but that will be much harder to prove. I am a firm believer thought that everyone has a natural limit and that limit is pretty high. Its just a technique and training thing, then once you hit a ceiling, hitting the weights and doing golf specific workouts can help raise that ceiling. It has the added benefit of helping prevent injury. A guy on Youtube, SAS golf is the channel I think, is working towards professional long drive competition. He started out in the 170s (I think it was, will have to check) with his driver ball speed and through training, technique, and the gym (which he said helped him a lot) he has reached 190s. Definitely a chunk of that improvement is from his workout regiment and he is a smaller guy.

> >

> > Edit: I should probably ask you what you mean by fitness training.

>

> Rory McIlroy averaged 313 this past year. Way back when he broke onto the tour, with a Titleist driver, he averaged 310. So, no, fitness didn't add length for Rory. Fine tuning the driver/ball added 3 yards.

 

Thank you for some normalcy in this discussion ... ?

[BarnbougleDunes03]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > @airjammer said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > > >

> > > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > > >

> > > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > > >

> > > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> > >

> > > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

> >

> > I agree with that. I guess my question is , could those maximized numbers be achieved with older smaller setups ? And I don’t mean once on trackman. I mean in control over and over again as they do now. Serious question.

>

> That is an interesting question. So myself, much, much less talented than any pro out there can manage to hit a persimmon with around 2k spin, 13-15 vertical launch and plenty of ball speed to carry 300 yards a few times in a row, wouldn't you think a pro could manage to do it repeatedly? This is with a modern ball of course. I can't possibly speak to any of the old ones (I just bought some professional 100s to test, never used but they shrunk a lot and weigh significantly less than they should, oh well, I am not surprised).

 

To your point about Golfers focusing on trying to hit it harder to increase distance, Molinari admits this being a key factor behind him gaining 20 yards in 3 years when declaring “I took the brakes off.” Aided with a specially designed Fitness Program in this distance pursuit, they were able to achieve it steadily and organically.

 

“Molinari has spent a lot of time with performance coach Dave Alred getting stronger and more flexible. Their work is evident in the power Molinari can generate with his legs, Pugh says. “Power doesn’t come from technique, it comes from physique,” he says. “The goal was to get him as strong as possible to create more power in his swing. But we had to make sure his technique didn’t block that newfound energy from being utilized.”> @LICC said:

> > @BarnbougleDunes03 said:

> > I hope LICC is sitting down - I reached out directly to Denis Pugh, Francesco Molinari’s recently retired swing coach and asked him if the distance increases he and Molinari gained were a result of the Fitness Program they designed for him, and Denis kindly replied back to me saying:

> >

> > “Fitness plays a massive part” - Denis Pugh

> >

> > So confirmed proof straight from the horses mouth, Molinari’s own swing coach admitting “Fitness plays a massive part” in their increasing distance.

> >

> > No doubt you’ll attempt to move the goal posts once again.

>

> Meaningless. What else was he going to say? It was the swing changes, not because all of a sudden Molinari began working out.

 

How exactly is Denis Pugh (Francesco Molinari’s swing coach) directly admitting to me that “Fitness plays a massive part” to the distance gains they achieved - but his direct confirmation is now suddenly “meaningless” to the fitness/distance topic?

 

Nice try. Yet more of your Goal-Post moving attempts when the truth doesn’t suit your clearly overtly-biased agenda.

 

Molinari’s coach is unbiased on this whole conversation and freely admitted “Fitness plays a massive part” in their distance gains - if anything he should be more biased to the swing tinkering/changes he oversaw, but he’s honest enough to admit the role of “Fitness plays a massive part” because that’s the truth, whether you like it or not. Now if Denis Pugh had admitted it’s plays no part or a very small part then this evidence would support your point, but he didn’t say that, it’s the opposite, and he has far more knowledge & insight on Molinari’s distance gains than anyone on this forum.

 

But here’s more evidence straight from the horses mouth.

 

“Molinari has spent a lot of time with performance coach Dave Alred getting stronger and more flexible. Their work is evident in the power Molinari can generate with his legs, Pugh says. “Power doesn’t come from technique, it comes from physique,” he says. “The goal was to get him as strong as possible to create more power in his swing. But we had to make sure his technique didn’t block that newfound energy from being utilized.”

 

LICC, it’s ok to admit you’re wrong or mistaken in the face of direct evidence you know.

[bigred90gt]

> @LICC said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @airjammer said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Since they were brought up. Obviously not a single person..not even the person themselves can quantify distance gains by fitness. Be we can absolutely say that both of these guys changed their swing significantly.

> > >

> > > Since the superspeed sticks were introduced countless YouTube personalities have started the protocols but very few have actually stuck with them. The main reason is because it’s very easy to ingrain bad mechanics all for the sake of speed. Which brings me to Phil..his golf game has gone downhill once the honeymoon period wore off. Same with Molinari. He had about a 6 month hot period and has now went back to his mean.

> > >

> > > You can train for speed but there hasn’t been one pro yet that has proven that they can sustain both speed and the rest of their game...Kids are a different story.

> > >

> > > Champions Tour guy’s gaining speed or distance 20 years past their physical prime without serious swing mechanics change..get out of here. It’s all equipment..all of it.

> >

> > While arguing that equipment IS part of it, all players regularly are making changes and adjustments to maximize their efficiency. One of the reasons Champions Tour players are hitting as far as they do is in many ways because their old drivers, balls AND swings were not close to optimized based on the knowledge we have today that they can take advantage of compared to their primes. The evolution of the ideal driver launch is much different now from then, and it is worth a LOT

>

> More unverifiable speculation. Equipment is practically ALL of it, not part of it.

 

You do realize the person you are talking to actually played on the pga tour back in the timeframe we’re discussing, right? Your accusation of “more unverifiable speculation” couldn’t be further from the truth. You should really learn your audience.