What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[Nard_S]

10 minutes ago, storm319 said:

When those guys share objective comparisons and support data rather than subjective criticisms, then we can talk. Keep in mind that their predecessors had the similar criticisms during their primes.

I would think the subjective criticisms of all time greats, representing about 50 major championships would suffice.

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, Nard_S said:

I would think the subjective criticisms of all time greats, representing about 50 major championships would suffice.

Actually subjective criticisms are never sufficient.

[storm319]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

You are not fully correct on this. How the ball is constructed is a factor. Less initial spin means less initial off axis spin. Modern ball has less initial to final spin ratio than old ball. Lucky for me, I actually played with this gear and didn't use to rick shields as a reference source.

Re-read my post. A ball’s construction has little bearing on the spin axis, just the amount of spin given the club’s delivery. While wound balata construction inherently spins more than multilayer urethane, the difference is not as drastic as you think nor would rolling back to something of similar performance result in drastically reduced distance nor a change in the way that Tour players approach the game.

[Nard_S]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

Re-read my post. A ball’s construction has little bearing on the spin axis, just the amount of spin given the club’s delivery. While wound balata construction inherently spins more than multilayer urethane, the difference is not as drastic as you think nor would rolling back to something of similar performance result in drastically reduced distance nor a change in the way that Tour players approach the game.

Then let's all go back to liquid center, wound balata balls. I am down for it.

[bscinstnct]

26 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Well I honestly don't think 10 to 15 yards reduction even makes a dent in what the RBs want to accomplish but thats fine if you personally think that makes golf become what you want it to be.

 

With that gear, the leaders will be at 300 yards with some blasts over 320+. But nobody carrying 320-330. 
Plus, much more skill involved and risk reward balance to go after it than with a toaster. 
Im not looking for some kind of 20% roll back. Just for the leaders to be at 300 yards.
That’s still the modern game with no impact on the ball or rest of the bag. 
 

Why does a pro need a giant, engineered material, adjustable driver and 46 inch shaft?

Meantime, they all use irons that are the same, in essence, as those used 50 years ago? Clearly, they take pride in their skill hitting blades. So, they can take some pride in not hitting the same driver as a 15 handicap; )

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by bscinstnct

[storm319]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Then let's all go back to liquid center, wound balata balls. I am down for it.

You may do what you’d like, but the majority of us are fine with the state of golf as is. 
 

Why are you even participating in a forum primarily based on modern equipment if all you are going to do is complain about it and advocate for its elimination?

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

With that gear, the leaders will be at 300 yards with some blasts over 320+. But nobody carrying 320-330. 
Plus, much more skill involved and risk reward balance to go after it than with a toaster. 
Im not looking for some kind of 20% roll back. Just for the leaders to be at 300 yards.
That’s still the modern game with no impact on the ball or rest of the bag. 
 

Why does a pro need a giant, engineered, adjustable driver and 46 inch shaft?

Meantime, they all use irons that are the same, in essence, as those used 50 years ago? Clearly, they take pride in their skill hitting blades. So, they can take some pride in not hitting the same driver as a 15 handicap; )

 

 

 

They don't need clubs that long.  I know of at least a few that swing 44.5 inches or less and carry 320+ all day in calm conditions.  I feel like you forget a few important details with what you say.  First, the goal of the RBs is not met with your idea, in fact, not dented.  The game doesn't change really at all.  Second, many of the longest pros I know for a fact, hold back as is.  Shorter equipment I really do think will result in the taps opened up more and the distance loss largely gained back.  Pro's don't have a hard time hitting the middle of a fairway wood, how will they struggle with a smaller driver?  Maybe a few more errant shots, sure, but will it make them swing less hard?  I really don't think so.  Clubs would have to be truly tiny and very poorly engineered to accomplish that.  If you do that, then we are basically back to the argument that the amateur golfer is too heavily impacted by such a change, and all just to reel in distance for a tiny percentage of golfers.

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, storm319 said:

You may do what you’d like, but the majority of us are fine with the state of golf as is. 
 

Why are you even participating in a forum primarily based on modern equipment if all you are going to do is complain about it and advocate for its elimination?

I'm pretty much on topic with this thread. How about you?

[bscinstnct]

5 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

They don't need clubs that long.  I know of at least a few that swing 44.5 inches or less and carry 320+ all day in calm conditions.  I feel like you forget a few important details with what you say.  First, the goal of the RBs is not met with your idea, in fact, not dented.  The game doesn't change really at all.  Second, many of the longest pros I know for a fact, hold back as is.  Shorter equipment I really do think will result in the taps opened up more and the distance loss largely gained back.  Pro's don't have a hard time hitting the middle of a fairway wood, how will they struggle with a smaller driver?  Maybe a few more errant shots, sure, but will it make them swing less hard?  I really don't think so.  Clubs would have to be truly tiny and very poorly engineered to accomplish that.  If you do that, then we are basically back to the argument that the amateur golfer is too heavily impacted by such a change, and all just to reel in distance for a tiny percentage of golfers.

 

I mentioned more than shaft length. Give the guys you know the set up I mentioned.

 

Tiger was carrying that set up around 285-290 in 2000. If the guys you know can carry it 320 on the course, well, they should be playing in the Masters alongside TW ; )

 

 

[Shilgy]

38 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Then let's all go back to liquid center, wound balata balls. I am down for it.

Did you see the ball retail prices from 20+ years ago? I certainly have no interest in your proposed rollback.

[storm319]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I mentioned more than shaft length. Give the guys you know the set up I mentioned.

 

Tiger was carrying that set up around 285-290 in 2000. If the guys you know can carry it 320 on the course, well, they should be playing in the Masters alongside TW ; )

 

 

Except for the fact that the Masters is not the LDA and more than double the number of shots are taken with a putter than a driver.

[storm319]

Just now, Shilgy said:

Did you see the ball retail prices from 20+ years ago? I certainly have no interest in your proposed rollback.

It would actually be way more considering that balata is not synthetic and is far less durable.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I mentioned more than shaft length. Give the guys you know the set up I mentioned.

 

Tiger was carrying that set up around 285-290 in 2000. If the guys you know can carry it 320 on the course, well, they should be playing in the Masters alongside TW ; )

 

 

 

You showed that roughly 15 yards is the difference between the clubs you want them to go back to and modern stuff.  I am comfortable in saying that plenty of the longest pro's will still bomb that over 300 carry.  I honestly think a lot of them can make up 15 yards roll back just by activating their glutes and calves a little more lol.

 

I really thick this all goes back to a lack of respect for the talent and power many of these guys have.  Tiger isn't the longest guy, or best ball striker to ever live.  I would argue that there are several on tour right now, that are as fast or faster than Tiger ever was even with the same equipment he used.

 

You have to remember, even if they end up at 300 average, that still isn't accomplishing anything remotely close to what will satisfy the RBs.

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Did you see the ball retail prices from 20+ years ago? I certainly have no interest in your proposed rollback.

 

Don't forget to adjust for inflation.

[Nard_S]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

Did you see the ball retail prices from 20+ years ago? I certainly have no interest in your proposed rollback.

Okay, say Tour requires old 3 piece wound. Nowadays? $85 a dozen. Sucks right? But who says you have to play with them? Nobody back then said you did. Why would you now? No difference to you or me. It's same soft bifurcation that once existed. 

 

Rick says, "there's little difference", lol...................go ask Jack.

 

You're sentiment says it all too, guess what I'm with you on that.

[storm319]

12 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Okay, say Tour requires old 3 piece wound. Nowadays? $85 a dozen. Sucks right? But who says you have to play with them? Nobody back then said you did. Why would you now? No difference to you or me. It's same soft bifurcation that once existed. 

 

Rick says, "there's little difference", lol...................go ask Jack.

 

You're sentiment says it all too, guess what I'm with you on that.

Please stop referring to differences in equipment choices as bifurcation.

 

Also, objective measurement vs the subjective ranting of an 80 year old geriatric. Hmmm, such a hard choice...

[Dr. Block]

I don’t think you could test any wound balls today and get proper and comparable data. This is just my opinion, but when I buy those balls off eBay to play with my vintage gear - they are noticeably dead.  I can remember back in those days a lot of players not wanting to buy the balatas that had been sitting for months, as many thought they went dead.  20 years has not been kind to those rubber-band windings. 
 

Thanks for the pic measurements Clevited.  I always wonder why a balata looks so small when I throw one down to hit a wedge shot.  Now I know why. 

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I don’t think you could test any wound balls today and get proper and comparable data. This is just my opinion, but when I buy those balls off eBay to play with my vintage gear - they are noticeably dead.  I can remember back in those days a lot of players not wanting to buy the balatas that had been sitting for months, as many thought they went dead.  20 years has not been kind to those rubber-band windings. 
 

Thanks for the pic measurements Clevited.  I always wonder why a balata looks so small when I throw one down to hit a wedge shot.  Now I know why. 

That is the point. When the difference in ball speed is only a few mph after years of degradation, imagine how much less of a difference there would be if it were new off the production line. While the degradation likely had an impact on spin, the difference if new is likely going to be in the hundreds not thousands like people are implying to result in a noticeable loss in distance.

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I don’t think you could test any wound balls today and get proper and comparable data. This is just my opinion, but when I buy those balls off eBay to play with my vintage gear - they are noticeably dead.  I can remember back in those days a lot of players not wanting to buy the balatas that had been sitting for months, as many thought they went dead.  20 years has not been kind to those rubber-band windings. 
 

Thanks for the pic measurements Clevited.  I always wonder why a balata looks so small when I throw one down to hit a wedge shot.  Now I know why. 

 

I had a guy on here telling me I was full of crap for telling him you can't use any tests with old wound balls as proof of anything.  I bought those a while back to show first hand the degradation.  I was going to make a thread but lost the ambition after he got shadow banned lol.

[Dr. Block]

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I had a guy on here telling me I was full of crap for telling him you can't use any tests with old wound balls as proof of anything.  I bought those a while back to show first hand the degradation.  I was going to make a thread but lost the ambition after he got shadow banned lol.

That’s interesting that they are still close. They’re down at least 15 yards off the clubs of their era (persimmon and steel heads) when I play them.  I never hit them with the modern gear though, that must change things  

Edited October 24, 2020 by Dr. Block

[bscinstnct]

47 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You showed that roughly 15 yards is the difference between the clubs you want them to go back to and modern stuff.  I am comfortable in saying that plenty of the longest pro's will still bomb that over 300 carry.  I honestly think a lot of them can make up 15 yards roll back just by activating their glutes and calves a little more lol.

 

I really thick this all goes back to a lack of respect for the talent and power many of these guys have.  Tiger isn't the longest guy, or best ball striker to ever live.  I would argue that there are several on tour right now, that are as fast or faster than Tiger ever was even with the same equipment he used.

 

You have to remember, even if they end up at 300 average, that still isn't accomplishing anything remotely close to what will satisfy the RBs.

 

I haven’t seen the exact figure the RBs are looking for. What is it?

 

If it’s much less than 300 then I’d suggest it’s either a negotiation tactic or poor leadership. Most fans appreciate big drives and very few want to see the average guy go back to carrying 245. 
 

Tiger went from averaging 298 in 2000 to averaging 216 in 2005. That’s pretty much what Rory and the distance leaders have been at recently. So, Tiger is a good benchmark. 

 

So, we are really taking about Rory, DJ and most *highly ranked long hitters carrying 285-290 (as TW did) and averaging 300 total. Sure, they could lean on it sometimes and carry 300+ but with a small steel head, they can’t just swing for the fences like with  with the big Titanium toaster where any accuracy counts. 
 

Which brings us to BD. He would still be longer than anybody, Rightfully so, he worked hard to get here. But, he would be carrying 310 or so, not 340+.

 

 

[Dr. Block]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

That is the point. When the difference in ball speed is only a few mph after years of degradation, imagine how much less of a difference there would be if it were new off the production line. While the degradation likely had an impact on spin, the difference if new is likely going to be in the hundreds not thousands like people are implying to result in a noticeable loss in distance.

Hell, sounds like they might go harder then modern balls if they were new.  Must be thin metal face springing bouncy rubber windings.  That’s my entirely un-educated hypothesis.
 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Nard_S]

31 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Please stop referring to differences in equipment choices as bifurcation.

 

Also, objective measurement vs the subjective ranting of an 80 year old geriatric. Hmmm, such a hard choice...

Way to go dissing Jack. 

[NRJyzr]

2 hours ago, clevited said:

 

They don't need clubs that long.  I know of at least a few that swing 44.5 inches or less and carry 320+ all day in calm conditions.  I feel like you forget a few important details with what you say.  First, the goal of the RBs is not met with your idea, in fact, not dented.  The game doesn't change really at all.  Second, many of the longest pros I know for a fact, hold back as is.  Shorter equipment I really do think will result in the taps opened up more and the distance loss largely gained back.  Pro's don't have a hard time hitting the middle of a fairway wood, how will they struggle with a smaller driver?  Maybe a few more errant shots, sure, but will it make them swing less hard?  I really don't think so.  Clubs would have to be truly tiny and very poorly engineered to accomplish that.  If you do that, then we are basically back to the argument that the amateur golfer is too heavily impacted by such a change, and all just to reel in distance for a tiny percentage of golfers.

 

I think lower MOI would indeed cause them more issues than is being supposed.  Remember how few of them stuck with the SLDR, the primary reason being the lack of control.  

 

A quick wound ball comment...  Davis Love III used to bomb Tour Balatas over the driving range nets at A NYC, with his persimmon.  Don't know how high they were, but they were 275 yards out at the time.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by NRJyzr

[mahonie]

9 hours ago, storm319 said:

 

Just because he had previously been fit does not mean that there isn't another option that is not a better fit. Keep in mind that the shaft only really has influence on how the club head is delivered to the ball. So if the shorter shaft was a good fit meaning allowed him to deliver the club head to the ball consistently at the optimum strike location, then there were other variables at play that would account for the increase (head weight change, swing or static weight change, length, feel influencing how he was swinging the club, placebo effect, etc). 

 

Anyways, you can believe what you want to believe but this ambiguous, anecdotal example does not support the idea that tour issued equipment is universally better than what is available at retail. 

A lot of it is total optimisation, I’ll give you that, but at the same time ‘Tour only’ is real and you will never have the access to the gear the pros have. 

 

I can’t embed the link for some reason but there is an eye-opening article at www.thepeoplesclubs.com

 

[mahonie]

7 hours ago, storm319 said:

Agree that a reduction in club head size likely wouldn’t reduce distance averages on Tour much but it could possibly prevent an LDA, swing out of your boots approach becoming the norm in the future. With that said if Tour players today are swinging with a greater emphasis on distance than accuracy off the tee, then I highly doubt a head size rollback (or any distance rollback for that matter) would change that.

One thing that I have seen doing the rounds is outlawing hollow clubheads. So you can still have your 460cc head but you’ve got to find a material that is light enough to swing while being solid throughout. If memory serves the first steel-headed drivers were limited by physics to about 195cc and it was much more difficult to manipulate COG and MOI within that footprint.

[mahonie]

6 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

See that's the awesome thing about an RB directed equipment rollback.  They will likely do enough to cause 99% of the amateur golf world to suffer while slightly inconveniencing the pros for a few years.  It's Groove Rule II which was the last time the RBs fixed the bomb and gouge scoring strategy issue.

The groove rule had absolutely no impact on any aspect of the game which is the worrying thing.

 

Taken from the conclusions to the ‘Distance Insights Report:’

 

‘It is not currently intended to consider revising the overall specifications in a way that would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game.’

 

They have been quite clever in their wording by trying to say that they won’t change much, but at the same time they have left everything on the table. I suspect they will try and keep the status quo and limit further gains. I’ve read a comment from a Titleist engineer somewhere where he confirmed that they have a longer ball waiting in the wings that complies with the Equipment Rules, but other aspects of its playability need to be tweaked. We all know that those tweaks are ongoing...20 years of Pro V1 development shows what can be achieved.

[Bubbtubbs]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually subjective criticisms are never sufficient.

Agreed.

 

"Reality doesn't care about your feelings." 

[ThinkingPlus]

4 hours ago, mahonie said:

The groove rule had absolutely no impact on any aspect of the game which is the worrying thing.

 

Taken from the conclusions to the ‘Distance Insights Report:’

 

‘It is not currently intended to consider revising the overall specifications in a way that would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game.’

 

They have been quite clever in their wording by trying to say that they won’t change much, but at the same time they have left everything on the table. I suspect they will try and keep the status quo and limit further gains. I’ve read a comment from a Titleist engineer somewhere where he confirmed that they have a longer ball waiting in the wings that complies with the Equipment Rules, but other aspects of its playability need to be tweaked. We all know that those tweaks are ongoing...20 years of Pro V1 development shows what can be achieved.

That is my hope as well.  Close up loopholes in the existing limits and cap distance gains due to everything, but the athlete.  However, the RBs recent track record is not good with this sort of thing.

[ThinkingPlus]

11 minutes ago, Bubbtubbs said:

Agreed.

 

"Reality doesn't care about your feelings." 

And it didn't happen if you don't have the data to prove it.