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

[Soloman1]

You want to see the PGA Tour change?

 

Get 90% of golfers to stop watching tournaments live on TV for one year. Heads will explode.

[OrangeGravy]

On 10/26/2020 at 12:49 PM, smashdn said:

 

I don't think that is true.

 

First and foremost MLB, MiLB, etc. plays with wooden bats due to tradition.  Plus several other professional leagues around the world (and a good number of amateur leagues too boot).

 

There are a slough of different non-wood baseball regulations as well.  I am not current on them now but was when I worked at a sporting goods store.  USSSA, bbCOR, etc.  There are different specifications based upon age as well (2 1/4" v 2 5/8" v 2 3/4" diameters and weight to length ratios, -3, -5 -7).

 

Softball was similar in the number of different bat rules.  

 

They changed several times while I was doing sporting goods as well. 

 

Actually, what happened with hs baseball bats mirrors drivers very well.  The original aluminum bats (1980's vintage) were brought out due to the cost of wood bats.  If you didn't know what you were doing with a wood bat you could break it with one swing.  I've done it.  College programs especially were going through acres of timber in a season.

 

Then the alloys got stronger and lighter and the bats got hotter and hotter.  Ping!  The trampoline effect was in full swing (no pun intended).  When they started reigning in the COR to limit homeruns and keep young players safe the bat manufactures found ways to keep the trampoline effect in the bats (as a whole) but abide by the COR.  I specifically remember two piece aluminum bats with a rubber material poured into the seam, carbon fiber material in cut-outs in the taper section of the bat and then composites.  Composite bats came to softball first then over to baseball.  I remember hearing from guys who played slow pitch softball tournaments that there were tournaments that had to enact rules limiting how many homeruns a team could hit in a game.

 

A good wooden bat is about 150-175 usd.  You don't want the $50 ash bat.  You will be at a decided competitive disadvantage to someone with a well made maple bat.  Just like persimmon, the really desirable, slow growth timber (ash especially) is tough to come by.  (Emerald ash borer is going to make ash bats history.)

 

So back to golf.  No need to make new persimmon clubs.  They can just throttle back the modern materials to around persimmon specifications, COR, max length, maybe they want to mess with COG, maybe not.

This is true. They've "slowed" down the metal bats for high school/college age for years now. To the point that a lot of our players preferred wood. The sweet spot was much more consistent with wood. You could get a real dead stick with the new metal bats and they cost about as much as a driver these days. If it wasn't for breakage, everyone would use wood. 

[Bubbtubbs]

23 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

And so Adam provided the answer.  Golf architects need to step up their game and the Tours need to choose more wisely.

Part of the problem is that the PGA prefers stadium courses to pack in the ticket sales and passes over some of the smaller tracks that are tighter and better guarded.

 

Can't say I blame them, but it's not as though they pick venues with maximum challenge to the competitors in mind.

 

(I miss Harbour Town)

[Bubbtubbs]

4 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

You want to see the PGA Tour change?

 

Get 90% of golfers to stop watching tournaments live on TV for one year. Heads will explode.

I already don't. The commercials, filler commentary and interviews consume too much of the broadcast time so I watch the edited majors delayed by a few hours. 

 

You can get the entire day coverage in 4 hours with no bullxxxx. 

[Soloman1]

Quote

You can get the entire day coverage in 4 hours with no bullxxxx. 

That's my idea of a gooooood workday.

[Shilgy]

9 hours ago, bogeysallday said:

Not sure whether it's been discussed throughout the previous 30 pages of this thread, but why not force pros to look for their own ball, with only caddy assistance? If they can't find it within an allotted timeframe (say 2 or 3 minutes?), then they have to take a 2-stroke penalty and play from the general vicinity of where the ball was lost (so as to prevent slow pace and players walking back to previous spot to re-hit for a 2nd time). So this results in a risk/reward scenario where they may feel confident in risking a 2-stroke penalty to walk up and find their ball. Versus, if they hit a conservative shot and know they will find it.

 

I bring this up because seeing Brooks Koepka at Shadow Creek with his huge search party drove me bonkers. If playing the latest stroke-and-distance 2-stroke penalty like my groups do, Brooks would've been chipping for his 4th stroke. Not his 2nd. So instead of him carding a birdie, he would've carded a single bogey on that hole. I think this is a bigger factor affecting pro scores versus amateur scores than people appreciate, especially considering the number of drop penalties I see scratch-level players take each weekend due to errant bombs that are lost in the trees, deep rough, behind blind doglegs, etc.

 

I'm sure there's a better set of comprehensive rules than what I came up with above, but I think the general approach would work at curtailing this "bombs-away" trend with no care for accuracy.

?? You see scratch level players taking a lot of drops because they can’t find their ball in the trees and such? How are they then scratch level?

 

edited to add....I like to watch the pros play golf...not have a “who’s best at finding balls contest”

Edited October 28, 2020 by Shilgy

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

?? You see scratch level players taking a lot of drops because they can’t find their ball in the trees and such? How are they then scratch level?

Absolutely. 100 %.  And it goes universally.   As I’ve said 300 times. My course is covered in thick trees.  And I regularly retire balls from my bag due to wear.   That’s how rarely I lose a ball.  

[ThinkingPlus]

11 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Second that. @ThinkingPlus  Good luck.  

@NRJyzr and BH.  Thanks for the good thoughts.  Unfortunately I played like crap.  It is a fun partners 2-day event.  Play 3 nines each day of different format (scramble, alt shot, best ball).  Net winners only.  My partner played poorly as well. We are currently DFL so nowhere to go but up. High/low light of the day was hitting PW into the 365 yard "par 5" 3rd hole and 3 jacking from 25 feet (it was playing a little downwind).  It was that kind of day.

[bladehunter]

9 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

@NRJyzr and BH.  Thanks for the good thoughts.  Unfortunately I played like crap.  It is a fun partners 2-day event.  Play 3 nines each day of different format (scramble, alt shot, best ball).  Net winners only.  My partner played poorly as well. We are currently DFL so nowhere to go but up. High/low light of the day was hitting PW into the 365 yard "par 5" 3rd hole and 3 jacking from 25 feet (it was playing a little downwind).  It was that kind of day.

Well in my experience when you play  like that on the first day , the second day usually goes opposite.  So look forward  to a likely great day today.  

[BNGL]

12 hours ago, Bubbtubbs said:

Part of the problem is that the PGA prefers stadium courses to pack in the ticket sales and passes over some of the smaller tracks that are tighter and better guarded.

 

Can't say I blame them, but it's not as though they pick venues with maximum challenge to the competitors in mind.

 

(I miss Harbour Town)

Yeah that’s not the reason the tour is building a TPC Network of “stadium golf courses” their doing it to save on course rental fees. The tour makes hardly any money from gate revenues (actually they don’t make money from Ticket sales those go to the area charity and beneficiaries of that weeks event), so packing fans into a course is not even a concern for the PGA Tour (although it’s a nice thought, but their bread is buttered by TV and the product ie players). 
 

I worked for the PGA Tour 

[Bubbtubbs]

59 minutes ago, BNGL said:

Yeah that’s not the reason the tour is building a TPC Network of “stadium golf courses” their doing it to save on course rental fees. The tour makes hardly any money from gate revenues (actually they don’t make money from Ticket sales those go to the area charity and beneficiaries of that weeks event), so packing fans into a course is not even a concern for the PGA Tour (although it’s a nice thought, but their bread is buttered by TV and the product ie players). 
 

I worked for the PGA Tour 

They might have to come up with a different revenue stream in 20-30 years if TV is their golden goose. Most of the people I know (physicians or lawyers under 40) pirate stream the events because none of us want cable or satellite subscriptions, or to watch hours of commercials during the programming.

 

Even if they put it in YouTube or Twitch, there's apps (or mobile app versions in the case of YouTube) that block ad displays, so even AdSense won't guarantee them any money.

[smashdn]

19 hours ago, Sean2 said:

That has been my contention. For the most part, bomb and gouge golf doesn't require the finesse and shot making skills we have seen in the past. 

 

It eliminates it to an extent for sure.  But I can understand why they gravitate towards to it (those that can produce the driver distance to do it that is).

 

Would you rather rely (base your livelihood) on hitting driver and wedges or do you think there is more variability shaping iron shots?  I would think that the latter would be harder to pull off week in and week out.

 

Now, for the bulk of us, we have to decide which style of play do we get more enjoyment playing.  I like having to hit those fun iron shots myself.  I am not very good at and my score reflects it when I play that way but I enjoy it more, within reason.  The next bit of it is, what is more entertaining to watch?  Bombing it 340 is no different on tv (to me) than driving it 270.  Watching one of those guys hitting a wedge is just not as entertaining as it is to watch them shape a mid-iron or long-iron into the green and land it so it releases and funnels closer to the hole.  That is pretty darn impressive, at least to me.

[hammersia]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

It eliminates it to an extent for sure.  But I can understand why they gravitate towards to it (those that can produce the driver distance to do it that is).

 

Would you rather rely (base your livelihood) on hitting driver and wedges or do you think there is more variability shaping iron shots?  I would think that the latter would be harder to pull off week in and week out.

 

Now, for the bulk of us, we have to decide which style of play do we get more enjoyment playing.  I like having to hit those fun iron shots myself.  I am not very good at and my score reflects it when I play that way but I enjoy it more, within reason.  The next bit of it is, what is more entertaining to watch?  Bombing it 340 is no different on tv (to me) than driving it 270.  Watching one of those guys hitting a wedge is just not as entertaining as it is to watch them shape a mid-iron or long-iron into the green and land it so it releases and funnels closer to the hole.  That is pretty darn impressive, at least to me.

I’ve been saying this for ages, good post.

 

270 or 340 on tv is absolutely no different.

 

More than that, what used to be really impressive was watching the exceptional long hitters In person at tournaments in the 1990s, with relatively normal size drivers. 
Sandy Lyle, John Daly, Tiger, later Quiros, the ball was hit and stayed hit, and it was amazing how much noticeably longer they were than 98% of the field.

 

All of that has been lost with the deskilling of the driver. 

[Titleist99]

3 hours ago, BNGL said:

Yeah that’s not the reason the tour is building a TPC Network of “stadium golf courses” their doing it to save on course rental fees. The tour makes hardly any money from gate revenues (actually they don’t make money from Ticket sales those go to the area charity and beneficiaries of that weeks event), so packing fans into a course is not even a concern for the PGA Tour (although it’s a nice thought, but their bread is buttered by TV and the product ie players). 
 

I worked for the PGA Tour 

Absolutely correct, they save on fees and that becomes profit. Player golf matches on Wednesday and donations help with the charity aspect.....

[Nard_S]

 

Came across this. Funny thing early Ti sees only 10 yard pop but Sim is 40 over original steel. Go to 5 min. to see numbers. 

[nsxguy]

13 hours ago, hammersia said:

I’ve been saying this for ages, good post.

 

270 or 340 on tv is absolutely no different.

 

More than that, what used to be really impressive was watching the exceptional long hitters In person at tournaments in the 1990s, with relatively normal size drivers. 
Sandy Lyle, John Daly, Tiger, later Quiros, the ball was hit and stayed hit, and it was amazing how much noticeably longer they were than 98% of the field.

 

All of that has been lost with the deskilling of the driver. 

 

Sounds like you're pining for the old days and would rather have a few big boppers than most everybody being somewhat equal off the tee.

 

Is that what you'd like to see ?

[hammersia]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sounds like you're pining for the old days and would rather have a few big boppers than most everybody being somewhat equal off the tee.

 

Is that what you'd like to see ?

I’d like to see exceptional ball striking achieved by only the most skilfull players yes.

[mvhoffman]

Personall

13 hours ago, Nard_S said:

 

Came across this. Funny thing early Ti sees only 10 yard pop but Sim is 40 over original steel. Go to 5 min. to see numbers. 

I think the M2 is the nicest looking club of them all and I'm not a TM guy at all

[physasst]

2 hours ago, hammersia said:

I’d like to see exceptional ball striking achieved by only the most skilfull players yes.

 

But keep in mind, others have different viewpoints. I'd bet that there are going to be many who tune in next week to see if Bryson can simply overpower Augusta. Many American sportsfans don't really care about skill or finesse. They want to see a spectacle. Which is why NFL teams have handcuffed defenses so much to increase scoring. It's why MMA is so popular. 

 

Just because you'd rather see something different does not mean that many others don't want to see a golfer drive the ball 400+ all over ANGR.

 

Just to clarify. Also, I think this ship has sailed. Young golfers are all chasing distance. Hell, I'm turning 50 in a few months and I'm trying to get more speed and more distance. 

 

M

[Nard_S]

2 hours ago, mvhoffman said:

Personall

I think the M2 is the nicest looking club of them all and I'm not a TM guy at all

I owned the 2nd gen steel one when it came out, came back to TM with the R7 in 2010. Played the R510 TP from 2015-2017. Yeah, that stuff was old but it worked well. So it would have been neat to see them delve into all the heads.

[oikos1]

I don't know a single golfer who doesn't want at least one more yard from their driver every time they play. 

[hammersia]

47 minutes ago, physasst said:

 

But keep in mind, others have different viewpoints. I'd bet that there are going to be many who tune in next week to see if Bryson can simply overpower Augusta. Many American sportsfans don't really care about skill or finesse. They want to see a spectacle. Which is why NFL teams have handcuffed defenses so much to increase scoring. It's why MMA is so popular. 

 

Just because you'd rather see something different does not mean that many others don't want to see a golfer drive the ball 400+ all over ANGR.

 

Just to clarify. Also, I think this ship has sailed. Young golfers are all chasing distance. Hell, I'm turning 50 in a few months and I'm trying to get more speed and more distance. 

 

M

Actually I don’t really think that many want to see him overpower Augusta, particularly when it means he will be richocheting out of the trees and chipping out all week to finish T20 (that’s my bet). 
 

If it was all about the long ball, then long drive would be much bigger than it is. 

[gvogel]

16 hours ago, Nard_S said:

 

Came across this. Funny thing early Ti sees only 10 yard pop but Sim is 40 over original steel. Go to 5 min. to see numbers. 

She gained 43 yards from the Original One to the SIM.  She gained club head speed because of the longer, lighter shaft - which is probably more consistent strike after strike than earlier TM shafts.  And the ball speed was increased due also to the improvements in the club head.  That was a 20% increase.  20%.

[Nard_S]

I have no idea why anyone wants to see major championship golf become a drive, pitch & putt spectacle. But here we are. 40 yards from the gear to hit a ball that is probably 10 yards straighter, on courses designed by guys who had hickory shafts. Pete Dye knew what's happening, not a shock that his courses hold up well. Carnoustie sets up well, the elements and design conspire to keep them off balance. 

 

"Off balance" is the essence of a good setup for pro golf. Modern gear works towards the exact opposite. Bryson at Augusta may turn out to be an inflexion point on this. There is no defense to 400 yard poke where the landing area is 100 yards wide. I can admire his work ethic & drive and still roll my eyes on how we all got to this. Honestly, I hope he destroys the records with his strategy. Then a real conversation just might take place.

[Sean2]

Maybe the way the game is being played is evolving? The game used to require finesse, shot making, and course management. Now there seems to be less of that and more of hit it as far as you can and wedge it in. Hitting fairways while a plus, doesn't seem to be a priority. Perhaps the game is changing into a bomb and gouge kinda thing. 

[davep043]

20 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

Maybe the way the game is being played is evolving? The game used to require finesse, shot making, and course management. Now there seems to be less of that and more of hit it as far as you can and wedge it in. Hitting fairways while a plus, doesn't seem to be a priority. Perhaps the game is changing into a bomb and gouge kinda thing. 

Amen, the game HAS evolved, and will continue to evolve.  And as most people do, a lot of us prefer the "old way", without thinking that the "old way" that we refer to was once the new and revolutionary way.

[Nard_S]

Why is evolving always viewed as a positive?  There was once Duke Ellington, now we have Beiber. There was once large mammals that roamed the Earth, our evolution wiped them away forever. There a several great civilizations that have "evolved " to complete irrelevancy for it's descendants. Progress is not linear, this game always reminds us of that. The piety that technology has ascended to in our culture, bleeds into the game too but it does not change a sober, underlying reality that is all around us too. Change happens, that does not necessarily make it by default good progress, when you evolve, there can be a devolve too. 

[davep043]

49 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Why is evolving always viewed as a positive?  

I wouldn't claim that its always positive, but it IS inevitable.  I'd be happy to have the Ruling Bodies find a way to stop further equipment-related distance gains.  But I don't think its possible to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube regarding the players physical condition, nor their understanding of optimal strategy.  And I'd discourage any attempt to roll back the clock to some previous distance standard for equipment.

[Bubbtubbs]

1 hour ago, Nard_S said:

Why is evolving always viewed as a positive?  There was once Duke Ellington, now we have Beiber. There was once large mammals that roamed the Earth, our evolution wiped them away forever. There a several great civilizations that have "evolved " to complete irrelevancy for it's descendants. Progress is not linear, this game always reminds us of that. The piety that technology has ascended to in our culture, bleeds into the game too but it does not change a sober, underlying reality that is all around us too. Change happens, that does not necessarily make it by default good progress, when you evolve, there can be a devolve too. 

It's always positive for somebody. That somebody just might not be you.

 

I mean that figuratively. Definitely not saying you specifically are a problem. Text is difficult to get the correct tone sometimes.

 

For example, the success of Napster singles downloads inspired iTunes. That benefited Apple and the consumer greatly but stabbed CD manufacturers and distributors in the heart. Depending on what side of the issue you were on, it could be positive or negative.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Bubbtubbs
Clarity

[Sean2]

49 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I wouldn't claim that its always positive, but it IS inevitable.  I'd be happy to have the Ruling Bodies find a way to stop further equipment-related distance gains.  But I don't think its possible to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube regarding the players physical condition, nor their understanding of optimal strategy.  And I'd discourage any attempt to roll back the clock to some previous distance standard for equipment.

Yes. As it is said, the only constant is change.