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

[QuigleyDU]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @300_yard_drives said:

> > How about the PGA tour gets rid of the 1st cut in firm conditions? It is basically a longer fairway lie that often prevents the ball going into longer and thicker grass. Make the rough long and nasty and a ball rolling towards the rough will be penalized. As analytics in golf have increased so has distance off the tee and I would compare the issue to 3pt shot in the NBA. If it is going to make you more successful then people will exploit it.

>

> You never hear about the NBA lowering or raising the basket or making the floor bigger or making the ball bigger.

> How 'bout making out of bounds a two shot penalty, or a water hazard a two shot penalty or making the bunkers a true

> hazard. Instead you have touring pro shout "get in the bunker"...A lot of things can be tested before rolling back the equipment.

> Guess we'll have to wait for the European Tour to try it first...they think outside the box.

 

They did chance the 3 point line a number of times. Most recently in 2017. The rest is kinda silly.

[Titleist99]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @300_yard_drives said:

> > > How about the PGA tour gets rid of the 1st cut in firm conditions? It is basically a longer fairway lie that often prevents the ball going into longer and thicker grass. Make the rough long and nasty and a ball rolling towards the rough will be penalized. As analytics in golf have increased so has distance off the tee and I would compare the issue to 3pt shot in the NBA. If it is going to make you more successful then people will exploit it.

> >

> > You never hear about the NBA lowering or raising the basket or making the floor bigger or making the ball bigger.

> > How 'bout making out of bounds a two shot penalty, or a water hazard a two shot penalty or making the bunkers a true

> > hazard. Instead you have touring pro shout "get in the bunker"...A lot of things can be tested before rolling back the equipment.

> > Guess we'll have to wait for the European Tour to try it first...they think outside the box.

>

> They did chance the 3 point line a number of times. Most recently in 2017. The rest is kinda silly.

I'm well aware of the fact that the NBA moves the three point line......I think that you are missing the point.

[QuigleyDU]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @300_yard_drives said:

> > > > How about the PGA tour gets rid of the 1st cut in firm conditions? It is basically a longer fairway lie that often prevents the ball going into longer and thicker grass. Make the rough long and nasty and a ball rolling towards the rough will be penalized. As analytics in golf have increased so has distance off the tee and I would compare the issue to 3pt shot in the NBA. If it is going to make you more successful then people will exploit it.

> > >

> > > You never hear about the NBA lowering or raising the basket or making the floor bigger or making the ball bigger.

> > > How 'bout making out of bounds a two shot penalty, or a water hazard a two shot penalty or making the bunkers a true

> > > hazard. Instead you have touring pro shout "get in the bunker"...A lot of things can be tested before rolling back the equipment.

> > > Guess we'll have to wait for the European Tour to try it first...they think outside the box.

> >

> > They did chance the 3 point line a number of times. Most recently in 2017. The rest is kinda silly.

> I'm well aware of the fact that the NBA moves the three point line......I think that you are missing the point.

 

Probably... haha

[SNIPERBBB]

Pro sports are all about entertainment(aka money). Purists are always going to complain about advances, thats what we do. NBA and for God knows why the NCAA .has introduced the Restricted Area, more and more sports are adding instant replay and more opportunities for it to be used(to appease fans, see Saints fiasco, and protect them from getting sued to oblivion by sports betting markets)

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Sure. But ...,, you basically boil this down to one side wanting a rollback and one side not. Neither is correct. Neither is really wrong.

> >

> > But I will add. If it’s thought that “ pros will just practice with a tiny driver and get good at it “ why all the hand wringing ? As in if it makes no difference why not do it ?

>

> I would think there would need to be a good reason to change it. If you admit it won't do much to change driving distance on the tour, then why do it? For fun? Meanwhile, it would almost certainly have a negative impact on the average golfer unless you bifurcate, but that is another subject and has major issues as well.

>

> Edit: What is pretty funny is I like the smaller club heads and I am not a great golfer. I have several older clubs and I like the look of them behind the ball much more as well as the feel when I swing them. Like they have so much less drag, and like the weight of the head is in a better spot. I prefer the feel of them when I swing them possibly because the CG is not so far away from the shaft tip or something.

 

I don’t agree that they won’t do anything.

 

It would absolutely cut down on the dead straight 300 plus drives that are hit. But you need to go back to around 975d size.

[bladehunter]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Sure. But ...,, you basically boil this down to one side wanting a rollback and one side not. Neither is correct. Neither is really wrong.

> >

> > But I will add. If it’s thought that “ pros will just practice with a tiny driver and get good at it “ why all the hand wringing ? As in if it makes no difference why not do it ?

>

> Because the whole point of having a tour presence is to push your retail offerings.

 

Sure. You change for everybody.

[Titleist99]

Here's what's hilarious to me....People are calling for rolling back the equipment when 90-95% of all golfers

can't break 90. All this comotion for what,,,,,300 Pga Tour Pros and a ouple hundred Euro Pros that hit it over 300 ards

Ridiculous. Millions of golfers need more distance...…..LOL!

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It would be really interesting if the governing bodies took the radical step to leave their current restrictions in place, allowed the best players play the courses the way they see fit, and allowed the other 99.8% of golfers do the same.

[jobin]

"play the courses the way they see fit"

 

Gotta wonder what this means. Golf is played by the Rules, other activities on golf courses are permitted but do not make Golf.

 

Sure, even hackers like me might choose to play the Ladies tee box on 7300 yrd White tee layouts, but we would still play by the Rules.

[clevited]

> @jobin said:

> "play the courses the way they see fit"

>

> Gotta wonder what this means. Golf is played by the Rules, other activities on golf courses are permitted but do not make Golf.

>

> Sure, even hackers like me might choose to play the Ladies tee box on 7300 yrd White tee layouts, but we would still play by the Rules.

 

Pretty sure that was meant that the game is played by the rules and that they golfer can choose to bomb and gouge, cut corners, play boring predictable stock shots all they want. Basically the things most pro rollbackers complain about.

[rangersgoalie]

PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

 

 

Driving accuracy

1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

[bladehunter]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

>

>

> Driving accuracy

> 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

 

Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

 

All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

[smashdn]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

> >

> > This, I completely agree with!! This is a perfect example of how you can design or set up a course without altering length and make it difficult. The tour stops have greens that are huge!!. I play a local dog track that is a super simple course but I never score well there because the greens are very small and the are like upside down cereal bowls.

>

> I think the larger greens are to offer a variety of pin positions. Well designed courses have well defined landing areas where you basically are looking at a 3-putt if you dont land it in the right area for the given pin. Even with that though, the longer hitters will still be at an advantage since they will typically have a a shorter iron in hand than the short knockers.

 

Exactly. Small greens are fine but they have issues with daily play. THey have less area to spread the wear and tear.

 

Large greens that play small are the ticket. Old Course's greens are huge but play small. PH#2 are average but play smaller than small. A huge green does not equate to an easy two putt or no need to hit the right spot from the fairway. That is part of the challenge, to not lose focus mentally and hit that target within the target.

[smashdn]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> With, I believe, a Pro V1x.

> All joking aside, we talk about the great "shotmaking" in memories, but only mention a select few when referencing it. Sure, Seve did whatever he wanted with the ball, but:

> Did Trevino hit a lot of high draws under the gun? Did Nicklaus curve it both ways a lot? More modernly, Montgomerie? Couples? Lehman? All great "shotmakers" in the wound ball era, but would never be called "shotmakers" if they played elite golf today, by today's nostalgic standards of shotmaking.

 

RE: the prov1, I think you are right. You can certainly spin the ball if you want it to. But does the ball spin when you don't want it to? Or does it spin to the point you _must_ spin it to control it?

 

I think most players are on record as saying they had stock shots and stock ball flights they used when otherwise there was no real advantage to working the ball the opposite direction. What I don't see know is players intentionally playing cuts and draws into greens (or off the tee) to take advantage of the lay of the land. I can't recall Bruce ever hitting anything off the tee other than a high fade. I don't blame him for playing that shot exclusively as it is what he is comfortable with and what the current conditions and style of game call for.

 

Nicklaus was able to do the same. But the difference I would point out is it was a real ability and capability of Nicklaus to be able to do that. He (almost he alone) was able to make that shot work because of his prodigious distance. He was hitting cuts and fades in a time when you almost had to hit a low draw to get the distance out of your shot. If everyone can do it, and not give up tons of distance, is it really an ability?

 

Phil is a shot maker. But he, like Seve, finds himself in troublesome situations. I hate to see guys like that marginalized or pushed out of the game.

 

Tiger. He not only curved it left and right but flighted it low when needed.

 

My whole point in all of this distance, ball spin, equipment talk in general is this, at one point in time (or for a good length of time I guess) there were lots of ways to be a winner on the PGA Tour and lots of different styles of golf being played that could win. Tom Kite was super accurate. Ben Crenshaw could putt the lights out of the ball. Hogan wasn't long but he was accurate and statistically not a good putter. Corey Pavin one his fair share of tournaments despite not being long off the tee. Tiger (1.0) had super length but he chose to employ it strategically and would hit less club off the tee and have longer irons into greens intentionally (plus he has/had a superb short game and putting).

 

It seems we have homogenized the way to win in most cases. That is unfortunate at least to me. I could see it being discouraging to folks coming up who aren't averaging it 310 off the tee. Courses and set-ups play a role in this, equipment, agronomy, you name it.

[smashdn]

> @Titleist99 said:

> Here's what's hilarious to me....People are calling for rolling back the equipment when 90-95% of all golfers

> can't break 90. All this comotion for what,,,,,300 Pga Tour Pros and a ouple hundred Euro Pros that hit it over 300 ards

> Ridiculous. Millions of golfers need more distance...…..LOL!

 

Bifurcate.

 

 

Snead was a long driver in his day. Hogan was not a short hitter either but not the longest. Disregard the iron distances or consider them to be two clubs weaker to be comparable to today's.

[15th Club]

90-95% of all golfers should take the $500 that they might spend on a new driver and 2 doz. Pro V’s, and instead spend it on lessons and a range pass.

 

Oh; and a caddy too. Which might help grow golf business as caddies learn the game.

[bigred90gt]

> @"15th Club" said:

> 90-95% of all golfers should take the $500 that they might spend on a new driver and 2 doz. Pro V’s, and instead spend it on lessons and a range pass.

>

> Oh; and a caddy too. Which might help grow golf business as caddies learn the game.

 

Not everyone has the time to spend grinding out lessons/practice on the range with enough consistency to actually improve in a measurable way, hence why most golfers cannot break 90. I never had a lesson and got to a 2 index because I practiced, a lot. Most people do not have the spare time to practice as much as I did (I was on the range or playing a round at least 5 days a week for a few years). And you can lay off the ProV already dude. Most people I see that struggle to break 90 aren't spending the money on expensive balls and dont have the newest shiny equipment. Most have a mixed bag of older equipment and play whatever balls they find or can pick up for less than $20. And sure, let's make the game MORE expensive by introducing caddies. You are so clueless to this topic and golf in general it is comical.

[15th Club]

Thanks for helping prove my point, sport.

 

If we imposed a total outright ban on urethane balls tomorrow morning, it wouldn’t mean a thing to the majority of recreational players — many of whom don’t even have indexes — because they don’t even buy them. Of course we won’t impose such a ban, and it really wouldn’t solve the distance problem if Bubba Watson played with Top Flites or Stratas. He just wouldn’t hit any greens. Or wouldn’t hold any greens.

 

And just to be clear about the fun I have picking on the Pro V1 in particular; it is because Acushnet Holdings Corporation has been the most vocal and aggressive corporate opponent in the ball rollback debate. And because the company is the biggest litigation threat to the ruling bodies.

 

Haha.

[golfer07840]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

> > >

> > > This, I completely agree with!! This is a perfect example of how you can design or set up a course without altering length and make it difficult. The tour stops have greens that are huge!!. I play a local dog track that is a super simple course but I never score well there because the greens are very small and the are like upside down cereal bowls.

> >

> > I think the larger greens are to offer a variety of pin positions. Well designed courses have well defined landing areas where you basically are looking at a 3-putt if you dont land it in the right area for the given pin. Even with that though, the longer hitters will still be at an advantage since they will typically have a a shorter iron in hand than the short knockers.

>

> > @golfer07840 said:

> > These distance threads are like an old married couple who have simply just had enough of each other and they break into a huge argument at Thanksgiving. It always starts out with someone stating what they feel is a fact. And then it turns into a polite "well no.. " and next thing you know it's full-blown warfare and you're stuck at the table shaking your head going "why did I even bother to come here this year?"

> >

> >

> >

>

> Well what can you expect from a 49ers fan???

 

Really? Of all the seasons to troll a 49ers fan you choose this one? Just as silly as these distance threads.

[QuigleyDU]

> @golfer07840 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > > IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

> > > >

> > > > This, I completely agree with!! This is a perfect example of how you can design or set up a course without altering length and make it difficult. The tour stops have greens that are huge!!. I play a local dog track that is a super simple course but I never score well there because the greens are very small and the are like upside down cereal bowls.

> > >

> > > I think the larger greens are to offer a variety of pin positions. Well designed courses have well defined landing areas where you basically are looking at a 3-putt if you dont land it in the right area for the given pin. Even with that though, the longer hitters will still be at an advantage since they will typically have a a shorter iron in hand than the short knockers.

> >

> > > @golfer07840 said:

> > > These distance threads are like an old married couple who have simply just had enough of each other and they break into a huge argument at Thanksgiving. It always starts out with someone stating what they feel is a fact. And then it turns into a polite "well no.. " and next thing you know it's full-blown warfare and you're stuck at the table shaking your head going "why did I even bother to come here this year?"

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Well what can you expect from a 49ers fan???

>

> Really? Of all the seasons to troll a 49ers fan you choose this one? Just as silly as these distance threads.

 

It was a joke man.!! Relax... I would have said the same thing no matter what team was on the picture... No need to be so sensitive.

[Krt22]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Thanks for helping prove my point, sport.

>

> If we imposed a total outright ban on urethane balls tomorrow morning, it wouldn’t mean a thing to the majority of recreational players — many of whom don’t even have indexes — because they don’t even buy them. Of course we won’t impose such a ban, and it really wouldn’t solve the distance problem if Bubba Watson played with Top Flites or Stratas. He just wouldn’t hit any greens. Or wouldn’t hold any greens.

>

> And just to be clear about the fun I have picking on the Pro V1 in particular; it is because Acushnet Holdings Corporation has been the most vocal and aggressive corporate opponent in the ball rollback debate. And because the company is the biggest litigation threat to the ruling bodies.

>

> Haha.

 

No one wants to watch clown golf.

[Titleist99]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> >

> >

> > Driving accuracy

> > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

>

> Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

>

> All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

 

Absolutely correct!....Distance is nothing if you can't hit a wedge close to the hole and sink the putt.....LOL!

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @gvogel

> > > > >

> > > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > > >

> > > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> > >

> > > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> > >

> > > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

> >

> > No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

>

> I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

>

> So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. **You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.**

 

For centuries, the tee shot was hit with a wooden driver face with a certain COR. The differences between the longest hitters who were elite players, and shorter players who were elite players, was not so much that shorter hitters could not compete. They evened it out with superior short games. In recent times, we had such winners as Corey Pavin, Ben Crenshaw, and Tom Kite - players who were not long, but found a way to win. Jack Nicklaus has said that when he played on the Tour, he could do an exhibition with a club pro and they could both play the same golf course. He now says that because of the distance advantage that modern equipment gives the best tour players, that type of exhibition cannot be played. And where have the Corey Pavins, the Tom Kites and the Ben Crenshaws gone? Nonexistent.

 

COR went from around .75 to .83, and you call me selfish because I want to see it rolled back. You do not. I call you "entitled."

[clevited]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @gvogel

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> > > >

> > > > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

> > >

> > > No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

> >

> > I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

> >

> > So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. **You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.**

>

> For centuries, the tee shot was hit with a wooden driver face with a certain COR. The differences between the longest hitters who were elite players, and shorter players who were elite players, was not so much that shorter hitters could not compete. They evened it out with superior short games. In recent times, we had such winners as Corey Pavin, Ben Crenshaw, and Tom Kite - players who were not long, but found a way to win. Jack Nicklaus has said that when he played on the Tour, he could do an exhibition with a club pro and they could both play the same golf course. He now says that because of the distance advantage that modern equipment gives the best tour players, that type of exhibition cannot be played. And where have the Corey Pavins, the Tom Kites and the Ben Crenshaws gone? Nonexistent.

>

> COR went from around .75 to .83, and you call me selfish because I want to see it rolled back. You do not. I call you "entitled."

 

I disagree. I wouldn't say I am entitled, I would say that I try to see the big picture. I have played golf in the 90s and still play today. I know what it was like before titanium and the prov1. I simply whole heartedly disagree with your form of logic, if it can be called that. It seems instead of logic, you are driven by nostalgia of an era come and gone. Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?

 

If you look at how distance has evolved, you could almost look at it as the tools of the game back in the day were not made well enough for the stronger player to actually make use of their physical gifts. Back then, swing too hard and no matter what you did, the ball would balloon or knuckle. There was also a very real risk to break your club. Come the modern age and now the stronger players are actually able to utilize what they have just like the weaker players once could. Weaker players are disappearing on tour because of darwinism imo. The weaker player can certainly enjoy the game but may not compete well on the big stage. Kind of like why pitchers that only can throw 80 mph don't make it on the big stage in baseball. They can be as accurate as they want but generally they will struggle with the exception of a few outliers here and there.

 

I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.

 

Also, I have seen the argument that says longer players don't have as big of an advantage anymore because of the ball and club technology. You are saying exactly opposite of a popular reason for a ball/technology rollback.

 

Edit: Your desire to drop to the .75 COR so that golfers are closer to the same distance wise doesn't actually work btw. The longest will still outdrive the shortest so much that they can't compete very well (unless they are an outlier with other intageables). The ball used to be so squishy that the harder you hit it, the severe amount less you would get out of it. It is a much more linear and fair relationship today (but as you saw in an earlier post of mine, energy transfer efficiency still drops off the harder you swing, it was just much more pronounced back in the day. It just shows you how held back Jack and others were back in the day.

[clevited]

I've got another solution. How about every player has to push around a USGA standardized golf ball trebuchet. That way distance will be leveled and as short as they want it and the game will be decided purely by course management, lucky/unlucky bounces, imagination and the putter.

 

 

 

 

[15th Club]

I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

 

First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

 

No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

 

Then there was this dumb paragraph:

“I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

 

A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

 

Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

[clevited]

> @"15th Club" said:

> I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

>

> First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

>

> No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

>

> Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

>

> A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

>

> Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

 

I wasn't addressing you, so your stupid comments about my stupid comments are stupid.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> 90-95% of all golfers should take the $500 that they might spend on a new driver and 2 doz. Pro V’s, and instead spend it on lessons and a range pass.

>

> Oh; and a caddy too. Which might help grow golf business as caddies learn the game.

 

I completely agree with you on this point. This is the best point you have made this whole discussion. I would even say the percentage could be higher.

 

 

[Titleist99]

Just an observation: Every generation plays a game in which the previous one is not familiar with.....How 'bout we halt the progress of the game to please the traditionalist and change the name of the game we see on TV to PGA Tour Super Golf..Driver/wedge. LOL! I'm not in favor of going back to the "featherie" but if we had stopped progress, we'd still be using it......Just my sarcastic opinion.....(smile)

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

>

> First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

>

> No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

>

> Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

>

> A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

>

> Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

 

Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.