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

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

See the bold.  Get in a groove, is what I said and that only happens for me after many hits on the range getting my timing down with my early extension.  But if I can manage that, I do believe a pro, with a repeatable swing without the need to get in a groove after many swings like me, can hit it middle pretty much every time.

 

You said 3/4 inch tee over and over and assumed that the tee alone would lead to your goal of the game being played as it were again.  I debunked that as thoroughly as I can on a forum.  You have since moved on to adding more to your tee idea, as in, it is no longer just the tee that will solve it which you have been so incredibly confident about on more than just this particular thread.  It is ok to admit to someone that maybe they are right, and then say, ok, well what if we add "x" change as well?  Ask people on here what they think, and lets talk about it.  

 

Do you know how to have a rational conversation or is everything a battle with you?  Lets have a discussion, as in, like we are solving a problem.  I like to bounce ideas around, see what people come up with, find flaws in arguments, see what a person can come up with to fix their flaws, and I enjoy defending my own position.  I think its fun and a person can learn a lot, meaning I can, and you can.

 

It is still my very firm conviction that simply limiting the tee to 3/4” will indeed put the game where it needs to be, with 300 yard drives the exception, not the norm.

sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody(other than you) thinks that what someone can do on a range has any relevance to what happens on the course with the tournament on the line. Lost my club championship in a playoff this year, and the air gets very thin in front of an audience I don’t care who you are. The 460 takes so much pressure off, and that’s not right. That’s not what golf or sport is, and you do need to have played at a decent level to realise that perhaps 

[ThinkingPlus]

20 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Huh?  they are agreeing with you when you say,  

 

 

“I am not saying that every golf course or setup works that way, but statistically over all courses played by professional male golfers hitting the fairway off the tee is relatively unimportant relative to optimal scoring. “

Rory was 1st in SG off the tee and 104th in driving accuracy in 2019. He knows hitting fairways is far less relevant than distance. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You misunderstood my point.  The "hit fairways" strategy was a what if scenario to illustrate what kind of information people value in forming opinions and making decisions. You, et al, value the subjective opinions of experts.  Myself, et al, value objective conclusions based on data, analysis, statistics, etc... .   In general, it makes conversations like we see in this thread pointless.

[Dr. Block]

8 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You misunderstood my point.  The "hit fairways" strategy was a what if scenario to illustrate what kind of information people value in forming opinions and making decisions. You, et al, value the subjective opinions of experts.  Myself, et al, value objective conclusions based on data, analysis, statistics, etc... .   In general, it makes conversations like we see in this thread pointless.

This thread has reached epic proportions of redundancy 

[nsxguy]

29 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

It is still my very firm conviction that simply limiting the tee to 3/4” will indeed put the game where it needs to be, with 300 yard drives the exception, not the norm.

sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody(other than you) thinks that what someone can do on a range has any relevance to what happens on the course with the tournament on the line. Lost my club championship in a playoff this year, and the air gets very thin in front of an audience I don’t care who you are. The 460 takes so much pressure off, and that’s not right. That’s not what golf or sport is, and you do need to have played at a decent level to realise that perhaps 

 

Wait, WHAT ???  

 

 

[clevited]

43 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

It is still my very firm conviction that simply limiting the tee to 3/4” will indeed put the game where it needs to be, with 300 yard drives the exception, not the norm.

sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody(other than you) thinks that what someone can do on a range has any relevance to what happens on the course with the tournament on the line. Lost my club championship in a playoff this year, and the air gets very thin in front of an audience I don’t care who you are. The 460 takes so much pressure off, and that’s not right. That’s not what golf or sport is, and you do need to have played at a decent level to realise that perhaps 

 

Where is your proof, facts, logic it will put the game where it "needs" to be?  Quantify also, "where it needs to be".  Does it match what the RBs desire?  Does it actually solve their problem statement?  Have you thought about how OEMs will design clubs to mitigate your idea?  Have you seen the post where I prove Rory isn't afraid to hit his small 3 wood with a full driver effort swing when he wants to or the shot requires it?  You were so sure that doesn't ever happen and you are making the same claim again.  

 

I also don't think one bit that I am the only one that thinks your 3/4 inch tee idea won't solve the "problem".  In fact, I am 100 percent confident about that.

 

Edit:  Forgot to add, nor am I the only one that thinks what someone can do on the range, they can also do on the course.  Like I outlined above, I had proven that to you earlier.  I can repost that for you if you have forgotten. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by clevited

[clevited]

10 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Wait, WHAT ???  

 

 

 

I rest my case lol.

[BNGL]

On 10/28/2020 at 7:50 AM, Bubbtubbs said:

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.

Oh absolutely they will have to change and evolve to keep the money flowing. But live sports will always reign supreme I think...now maybe the bubble might burst eventually but live sports tv rights are one of the few almost guarantees (unless you’re Fox Sports). If memory serves the Tour just recently signed a 9 year 680 million dollar deal. That was an increase from the previous value of 400 million on their last deal. Other leagues have signed new deals with increased valuations from previous deals. 
 

[milesgiles]

20 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Where is your proof, facts, logic it will put the game where it "needs" to be?  Quantify also, "where it needs to be".  Does it match what the RBs desire?  Does it actually solve their problem statement?  Have you thought about how OEMs will design clubs to mitigate your idea?  Have you seen the post where I prove Rory isn't afraid to hit his small 3 wood with a full driver effort swing when he wants to or the shot requires it?  You were so sure that doesn't ever happen and you are making the same claim again.  

 

I also don't think one bit that I am the only one that thinks your 3/4 inch tee idea won't solve the "problem".  In fact, I am 100 percent confident about that.

 

I’ve ‘quantified’ it endlessly. 

 

Rory absolutely does not swing ‘flat out’, ever, with a 3 wood. His ball speed is nowhere near his ‘flat out’ driver. Not even close.. and he’s  quite possibly the best fairway wood player out there, along with Stenson.

 

at least twice now you’ve offered ‘proof’ which is laughable. This is where your intellectual pretensions get exposed. Rory doing this, that or the other, or a guy on this forum on a practise tee IS NOT PROOF. It is EVIDENCE of extremely questionable value, at best. To me, it’s close to worthless, others may be more charitable (haven’t noticed any itt btw ) Do you understand what ‘proof’ actually means? 

Edited November 3, 2020 by milesgiles

[clevited]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

I’ve ‘quantified’ it endlessly. 

 

Rory absolutely does not swing ‘flat out’, ever, with a 3 wood. His ball speed is nowhere near his ‘flat out’ driver. Not even close.. and quite possibly the best fairway wood player out there, along with Stenson.

 

at least twice now you’ve offered ‘proof’ which is laughable. This is where your intellectual pretensions get exposed. Rory doing this, that or the other, or a guy on this forum on a practise tee IS NOT PROOF. It is EVIDENCE of extremely questionable value, at best. To me, it’s close to worthless, others may be more charitable (haven’t noticed any itt btw ) Do you understand what ‘proof’ actually means? 

 

I said players swing with as much effort as a full swing driver, NOT a nuked driver.  I was VERY clear on that.  (capitalizing to emphasis not to yell).  I showed you Rory hitting 172 ball speed on the range, and eclipsing that with 174 on the course with a 3 wood.  Of course he isn't going to hit the same ball speed as he would with a driver, it is a shorter club with more loft!  I can't believe I am having to repeat myself on this again but here you go since you clearly didn't read it last time.

---------------------------------------------------

All right. I am just going to take some of your evidence and claims, and provide my counter evidence and claims.  By doing so, I hope it might be more clear where I am coming from and the logic I am using.  I know it is a lot to take in, but if you read through it carefully please, I would appreciate it.

 

You said: "ive watched Rory many times on track man over the years and his difference is more like 10-15 yards.. on a range.

he simply does not swing as hard on the course with a 3 wood as he does on the range. It’s too small and unforgiving, and he’s as good a ball striker as anyone, give or take."

 

Rory range 3 wood:

 

Rory Course 3 Wood:

 

As you can see above, I grabbed a pic of Rory hitting 3 wood on the range, and Rory hitting a 3 wood on the course.  The ball speed is all I am focused on.  It is a good indication of his being afraid to swing full or not.  I watch these videos all of the time.  I have memory of Rory often being in that 170-172 mph range off the tee with 3 wood. This just shows, he isn't afraid to hit a full 3 wood off the tee in competition.  (I have also seen ball speeds in the 160s.  He is known to carry a 5 wood sometimes, or he could have not swung full because the shot didn't require it, or he might have miss hit the club a little on those ones.  Who knows.)

 

I brought up before that he swings his fairway with similar effort to a full swing with driver (not nuked mind you, but stock full swing).  I grabbed his average driving ball speed from 2019, which was 182.68.  I grabbed his WITB from 2020 where his driver is 45.5 inch long, and his 3 wood was 43.25 inches long.  Since driver and 3 woods tend to have similar smash factors when struck middle, it should be pretty close to a linear relationship between speed and length. 

 

182.68 mph/45.5 inch = 4.015 mph/inch, 4.015 mph/inch X 43.25 inch = 173.648 mph.  This is very close to his on course 3 wood ball speed and I expected there to be some drop in speed due to club weight and spin differences.  This is just one example, but I don't think any tour player is afraid to hit a full shot with fairway wood off a tee on the course based on similar observations with other players.

 

You Said: "Reduce the tee and therefore the clubhead size, you can still choose to swing flat out.. but you’ll pay the price if it’s not accurately applied..as it should be. 460cc and a 3” tee is bowling with the bumpers up."

 

The driver Quigley tested, was a mini driver, just the right size to hit off of a 3/4 inch tee.  I think it is very logical, that drivers like it would be developed and become widely available soon after such a rule change.  Below is data from a popular golf youtuber, Michael Newton Golf.  He showed that in comparison to his M6, it was essentially, no different and as far as I could tell, he was hitting it off of what looked close to a 3/4 inch tee height.  This was also with the mini driver's shaft on both clubs.

 

Search Youtube for: TaylorMade Original One Mini Driver VS M6 Driver Using Same Mini Length Shaft!

 

This just goes to show you that big toaster on a stick or mini head, he accomplished pretty much the same numbers albeit, with a shorter driver shaft (stock shaft is 43.75 inches).  

 

Quigley was able to at a minimum show that a mini driver head, on a driver length shaft, can bit hit very close to the same distance as his regular playing driver.  It is reasonable to assume that should a 3/4 inch tee rule be put into affect, that the mini driver designs would become common and would get better and better for spin management and forgiveness thus making it extremely probable that a player can accomplish similar distance numbers with the mini driver off a short tee, vs their big driver off whatever tee length they want.  (keep in mind, most players are not teeing the ball up super high and hitting way up on it and are still bombing it).

 

You Said i(n regards to @QuigleyDU mini driver numbers): "Nice numbers on a range I wouldn’t expect too much difference, its on the course when a miss hit means something that the smaller clubhead would logically have to be swung more cautiously. That’s the factor that would get carries well under 300 yards."

 

Your argument for why a 3/4 inch tee alone would fix everything hinges on players being too scared to swing full with it during a tournament, because it would be too hard to control if miss hit right?   I just don't think a 3/4 inch tee is going to require a head small enough to accomplish what you want to accomplish.  I am using the data I can find in a reasonable amount of time and effort to illustrate why I think this is likely true.  It is hard to regurgitate all of the data one has seen over the years that gives one an intimate understanding of what pros are capable of.  From everything I have seen and read and from my own personal experience, few pro golfers are going to be unable to swing full swings with a smaller driver head as required by changing the tee to 3/4 inch.

 

You Said: "NOBODY IS TRYING TO REIGN IN THE LONGEST HITTERS IT IS ABOUT REIGNING IN THE FIELD AVERAGE SUCH THAT ACCURACY IS REWARDED OFF THE TEE AND A GREATER VARIETY OF CLUBS ARE USED FOR APPROACH SHOTS.

 

Often times what is brought up, are the longest of the long "destroying courses".  It isn't always just about the tour average.  It is wanting the players to all have to play a certain way and use certain clubs for approach shots and what not.  The current average indicates that more and more players are able to "destroy" courses.  It isn't hard to see that when a game has always had a correlation with length and scoring opportunities, that the average pro would get longer and longer.  When trying to mitigate such a thing, you have to consider the future player do you not?  If you put an even greater premium on distance by rolling back a ball, or nerfing any aspect of distance, it will just make length that much more special and coveted will it not?  This is precisely why I bring up the long drive guys.  That kind of speed combined with great ball striking would likely be a trait of future pga pro's.  It just makes logical sense.

 

You mocked me for bringing up Jamie Sadlowski and Kyle Berkshire.  Those two guys show what a human is capable of.  They both are capable of swinging tiny headed clubs (3 wood or a persimmon in Kyle's case) and hit middle and control it at very high speed.  Why wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that future tour pro's would have those talents?  They exist already.  They are on tour today.  Bryson is knocking on the door of long drive speed numbers.  Other players have close to that kind of speed too its just that they rarely need to use it.  Finau, Woodland, Bubba, Holmes, Rory even.  All examples of this.  If you roll back distance, these guys now have a reason to open the taps up more.  Mini driver or not.  I believe all of those guys have the ability to be in the 190s without falling on their butts.  Heck, Finau has hit 200 mph.  

 

You said: "(since so many seem to still be confused by the issue)

my contension is let’s start with the absolute simplest idea first.. the tee. If the field average is still too high (eg fairway bunkers not in play, not enough mid/long iron approaches etc.. then the next simplest thing would probably be CoR limits. Way down my list would be course setup which would be endlessly expensive and complicated. I don’t think I’d roll back the ball at all, to avoid bifurcation."

 

This is a fine thought, except, how about they test it outside of the professional game first, to see if it has any merit rather than disrupting everything for an experiment?  Rather than start a mini driver arms race, and mess up everyone's driver swings to accommodate a shorter tee, how about they robot test it, have OEMs design their best club to fight against what a shorter tee does and invite tour players to come in and test some more?  Then if they determine it is a viable solution on its own, they can pick a date to implement it on tour that gives everyone enough time to adjust before it is rule.  If they find it won't do the job on its own, they can further test additional changes to the club, or ball, or whatever.  Maybe no tee is the solution they come up with.  Who knows.

 

You Said: "i disagree strongly with this argument that pros would adjust and be back to where they were before, if using a short tee. You simply can’t swing as hard with a smaller club head, hence why average 3 wood carry is about 260. You can keep quoting ridiculous long drive examples all you want."

 

 

Average 3 wood carry is a result of the club being shorter, heavier and spinning more.  Not to mention usually being hit lower depending on attack angle.  If you use the same linear relationship I used with Rory's numbers earlier, you will see that the ball speed and swing speed for 3 wood are very proportional to the length difference between a typical tour driver and a typical 3 wood shaft.  This indicates that they do indeed, on average, swing a 3 wood as hard as a driver.  I think maybe too many people think tour pro's all swing out of their shoes with driver, they don't.  They swing full.  Only on occasion do they really try to nut one.  Look at Bryson.  People think he is swinging out of his shoes but he isn't.  He is usually hitting high 180s ball speed, occasionally low 190s but has the ability to hit over 200 mph.

 

I think it is illogical to think that pro's will just swing way slower if they had to use a smaller head, I mean, look at the below picture.

 

You have to define what size that head needs to be and that isn't something you can just guess at and be right.  It would require testing and lots of it.  Now, please don't get worked up over the above stuff I posted.  We can have a good discussion on this, in fact I invite it and would love for you to come back and provide some evidence and facts to show where I am wrong.  I am cool with that.  I think we will both be hard pressed though to find conclusive evidence regardless, because I don't know of any pro's that have thrown a roughly 3 wood sized head on a driver shaft and practiced with it enough to know what they can and cannot do with it off a short tee.  Based on what I have seen over the years (represented in only a very small amount in the data above of course), I am lead to believe it wouldn't make a meaningful difference on distance long term.

 

I prefer to make friends not enemies on here, and I would prefer we start over and try to do the friends thing rather than the alternative.  What say you?

 

FYI, if something isn't clear, or you don't understand where I am going with it, please ask, I will do my best to explain my thinking.

[milesgiles]

34 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You misunderstood my point.  The "hit fairways" strategy was a what if scenario to illustrate what kind of information people value in forming opinions and making decisions. You, et al, value the subjective opinions of experts.  Myself, et al, value objective conclusions based on data, analysis, statistics, etc... .   In general, it makes conversations like we see in this thread pointless.

 

I get what you’re saying, but I think your logic is a little off. These days, we can predict, to a very high degree of certainty, what would happen by changing every equipment variable as much as we like. The idea we’d have to test for months or years in a lab is absurd.

Adam, Rory, Nick, Jack, Woosie, Lyle and god knows how many others all say essentially the same thing. The driver is too forgiving, it takes too little skill and it has led the game into becoming one dimensional with one dimensional players. And the only way to rebalance the game would be to try changing any and all variables in a tournament setting. Anything else is pointless 

[bscinstnct]

28 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You misunderstood my point.  The "hit fairways" strategy was a what if scenario to illustrate what kind of information people value in forming opinions and making decisions. You, et al, value the subjective opinions of experts.  Myself, et al, value objective conclusions based on data, analysis, statistics, etc... .   In general, it makes conversations like we see in this thread pointless.

 

I see. Data driven and what not.

 

😂

 

So, here is the data,  Rory was 1st in SG off the tee in 2019. He was 2nd in distance. He was 104th in driving accuracy. 
 

He was PoY and won the FedEx Cup. 
 

It’s clear that he benefits from the data driven conclusion that distance is far more important than hitting fairways.

 

This is *my point. And here is more data;

 

3 or the top 5 owgr hit fairways 50-59%.
 

Some, and I think you are in this camp, don’t see this as a bad thing. I disagree. Now, we are discussing an interpretation of what a person favors as a balance they prefer in the distance vs accuracy equation. 

 

So, what am I misunderstanding?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I’ve ‘quantified’ it endlessly. 

 

Rory absolutely does not swing ‘flat out’, ever, with a 3 wood. His ball speed is nowhere near his ‘flat out’ driver. Not even close.. and quite possibly the best fairway wood player out there, along with Stenson.

 

at least twice now you’ve offered ‘proof’ which is laughable. This is where your intellectual pretensions get exposed. Rory doing this, that or the other, or a guy on this forum on a practise tee IS NOT PROOF. It is EVIDENCE of extremely questionable value, at best. To me, it’s close to worthless, others may be more charitable (haven’t noticed any itt btw ) Do you understand what ‘proof’ actually means? 

 

The sad thing is, you think you have quantified endlessly your point when I have yet to see anything that does anything close.  I even asked you to point me to an entry where you have in the past.  I proved pro's are not afraid to swing a fairway wood full swing, quigley helped show you can still get close to or as good of numbers with a mini driver off a 3/4 inch tee with a full length driver shaft which I had proposed earlier in this thread.  I showed the strike consistency of a no name pga pro which is more than good enough for a mini driver.  What more do you need?  I will admit  all that is not definitive but it sure is a heck of a lot more in quantity and specificity than your efforts so far. 

 

I challenge you to do better.  Maybe if you try harder you will make a much clearer and better case for what you say? 

[milesgiles]

I read all that the first time. I’ve just explained, he is exceptionally good with that club, even by tour standards, and that selecting screen grabs is hardly objective. When you see a pro swinging himself off his feet, it is always with the toaster, never the 3 wood.

[bladehunter]

42 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Where is your proof, facts, logic it will put the game where it "needs" to be?  Quantify also, "where it needs to be".  Does it match what the RBs desire?  Does it actually solve their problem statement?  Have you thought about how OEMs will design clubs to mitigate your idea?  Have you seen the post where I prove Rory isn't afraid to hit his small 3 wood with a full driver effort swing when he wants to or the shot requires it?  You were so sure that doesn't ever happen and you are making the same claim again.  

 

I also don't think one bit that I am the only one that thinks your 3/4 inch tee idea won't solve the "problem".  In fact, I am 100 percent confident about that.

 

Edit:  Forgot to add, nor am I the only one that thinks what someone can do on the range, they can also do on the course.  Like I outlined above, I had proven that to you earlier.  I can repost that for you if you have forgotten. 

Where’s the proof it’s where it needs to be now ?  See what I mean ?  

[bladehunter]

16 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I said players swing with as much effort as a full swing driver, NOT a nuked driver.  I was VERY clear on that.  (capitalizing to emphasis not to yell).  I showed you Rory hitting 172 ball speed on the range, and eclipsing that with 174 on the course with a 3 wood.  Of course he isn't going to hit the same ball speed as he would with a driver, it is a shorter club with more loft!  I can't believe I am having to repeat myself on this again but here you go since you clearly didn't read it last time.

---------------------------------------------------

All right. I am just going to take some of your evidence and claims, and provide my counter evidence and claims.  By doing so, I hope it might be more clear where I am coming from and the logic I am using.  I know it is a lot to take in, but if you read through it carefully please, I would appreciate it.

 

You said: "ive watched Rory many times on track man over the years and his difference is more like 10-15 yards.. on a range.

he simply does not swing as hard on the course with a 3 wood as he does on the range. It’s too small and unforgiving, and he’s as good a ball striker as anyone, give or take."

 

Rory range 3 wood:

 

Rory Course 3 Wood:

 

As you can see above, I grabbed a pic of Rory hitting 3 wood on the range, and Rory hitting a 3 wood on the course.  The ball speed is all I am focused on.  It is a good indication of his being afraid to swing full or not.  I watch these videos all of the time.  I have memory of Rory often being in that 170-172 mph range off the tee with 3 wood. This just shows, he isn't afraid to hit a full 3 wood off the tee in competition.  (I have also seen ball speeds in the 160s.  He is known to carry a 5 wood sometimes, or he could have not swung full because the shot didn't require it, or he might have miss hit the club a little on those ones.  Who knows.)

 

I brought up before that he swings his fairway with similar effort to a full swing with driver (not nuked mind you, but stock full swing).  I grabbed his average driving ball speed from 2019, which was 182.68.  I grabbed his WITB from 2020 where his driver is 45.5 inch long, and his 3 wood was 43.25 inches long.  Since driver and 3 woods tend to have similar smash factors when struck middle, it should be pretty close to a linear relationship between speed and length. 

 

182.68 mph/45.5 inch = 4.015 mph/inch, 4.015 mph/inch X 43.25 inch = 173.648 mph.  This is very close to his on course 3 wood ball speed and I expected there to be some drop in speed due to club weight and spin differences.  This is just one example, but I don't think any tour player is afraid to hit a full shot with fairway wood off a tee on the course based on similar observations with other players.

 

You Said: "Reduce the tee and therefore the clubhead size, you can still choose to swing flat out.. but you’ll pay the price if it’s not accurately applied..as it should be. 460cc and a 3” tee is bowling with the bumpers up."

 

The driver Quigley tested, was a mini driver, just the right size to hit off of a 3/4 inch tee.  I think it is very logical, that drivers like it would be developed and become widely available soon after such a rule change.  Below is data from a popular golf youtuber, Michael Newton Golf.  He showed that in comparison to his M6, it was essentially, no different and as far as I could tell, he was hitting it off of what looked close to a 3/4 inch tee height.  This was also with the mini driver's shaft on both clubs.

 

Search Youtube for: TaylorMade Original One Mini Driver VS M6 Driver Using Same Mini Length Shaft!

 

This just goes to show you that big toaster on a stick or mini head, he accomplished pretty much the same numbers albeit, with a shorter driver shaft (stock shaft is 43.75 inches).  

 

Quigley was able to at a minimum show that a mini driver head, on a driver length shaft, can bit hit very close to the same distance as his regular playing driver.  It is reasonable to assume that should a 3/4 inch tee rule be put into affect, that the mini driver designs would become common and would get better and better for spin management and forgiveness thus making it extremely probable that a player can accomplish similar distance numbers with the mini driver off a short tee, vs their big driver off whatever tee length they want.  (keep in mind, most players are not teeing the ball up super high and hitting way up on it and are still bombing it).

 

You Said i(n regards to @QuigleyDU mini driver numbers): "Nice numbers on a range I wouldn’t expect too much difference, its on the course when a miss hit means something that the smaller clubhead would logically have to be swung more cautiously. That’s the factor that would get carries well under 300 yards."

 

Your argument for why a 3/4 inch tee alone would fix everything hinges on players being too scared to swing full with it during a tournament, because it would be too hard to control if miss hit right?   I just don't think a 3/4 inch tee is going to require a head small enough to accomplish what you want to accomplish.  I am using the data I can find in a reasonable amount of time and effort to illustrate why I think this is likely true.  It is hard to regurgitate all of the data one has seen over the years that gives one an intimate understanding of what pros are capable of.  From everything I have seen and read and from my own personal experience, few pro golfers are going to be unable to swing full swings with a smaller driver head as required by changing the tee to 3/4 inch.

 

You Said: "NOBODY IS TRYING TO REIGN IN THE LONGEST HITTERS IT IS ABOUT REIGNING IN THE FIELD AVERAGE SUCH THAT ACCURACY IS REWARDED OFF THE TEE AND A GREATER VARIETY OF CLUBS ARE USED FOR APPROACH SHOTS.

 

Often times what is brought up, are the longest of the long "destroying courses".  It isn't always just about the tour average.  It is wanting the players to all have to play a certain way and use certain clubs for approach shots and what not.  The current average indicates that more and more players are able to "destroy" courses.  It isn't hard to see that when a game has always had a correlation with length and scoring opportunities, that the average pro would get longer and longer.  When trying to mitigate such a thing, you have to consider the future player do you not?  If you put an even greater premium on distance by rolling back a ball, or nerfing any aspect of distance, it will just make length that much more special and coveted will it not?  This is precisely why I bring up the long drive guys.  That kind of speed combined with great ball striking would likely be a trait of future pga pro's.  It just makes logical sense.

 

You mocked me for bringing up Jamie Sadlowski and Kyle Berkshire.  Those two guys show what a human is capable of.  They both are capable of swinging tiny headed clubs (3 wood or a persimmon in Kyle's case) and hit middle and control it at very high speed.  Why wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that future tour pro's would have those talents?  They exist already.  They are on tour today.  Bryson is knocking on the door of long drive speed numbers.  Other players have close to that kind of speed too its just that they rarely need to use it.  Finau, Woodland, Bubba, Holmes, Rory even.  All examples of this.  If you roll back distance, these guys now have a reason to open the taps up more.  Mini driver or not.  I believe all of those guys have the ability to be in the 190s without falling on their butts.  Heck, Finau has hit 200 mph.  

 

You said: "(since so many seem to still be confused by the issue)

my contension is let’s start with the absolute simplest idea first.. the tee. If the field average is still too high (eg fairway bunkers not in play, not enough mid/long iron approaches etc.. then the next simplest thing would probably be CoR limits. Way down my list would be course setup which would be endlessly expensive and complicated. I don’t think I’d roll back the ball at all, to avoid bifurcation."

 

This is a fine thought, except, how about they test it outside of the professional game first, to see if it has any merit rather than disrupting everything for an experiment?  Rather than start a mini driver arms race, and mess up everyone's driver swings to accommodate a shorter tee, how about they robot test it, have OEMs design their best club to fight against what a shorter tee does and invite tour players to come in and test some more?  Then if they determine it is a viable solution on its own, they can pick a date to implement it on tour that gives everyone enough time to adjust before it is rule.  If they find it won't do the job on its own, they can further test additional changes to the club, or ball, or whatever.  Maybe no tee is the solution they come up with.  Who knows.

 

You Said: "i disagree strongly with this argument that pros would adjust and be back to where they were before, if using a short tee. You simply can’t swing as hard with a smaller club head, hence why average 3 wood carry is about 260. You can keep quoting ridiculous long drive examples all you want."

 

 

Average 3 wood carry is a result of the club being shorter, heavier and spinning more.  Not to mention usually being hit lower depending on attack angle.  If you use the same linear relationship I used with Rory's numbers earlier, you will see that the ball speed and swing speed for 3 wood are very proportional to the length difference between a typical tour driver and a typical 3 wood shaft.  This indicates that they do indeed, on average, swing a 3 wood as hard as a driver.  I think maybe too many people think tour pro's all swing out of their shoes with driver, they don't.  They swing full.  Only on occasion do they really try to nut one.  Look at Bryson.  People think he is swinging out of his shoes but he isn't.  He is usually hitting high 180s ball speed, occasionally low 190s but has the ability to hit over 200 mph.

 

I think it is illogical to think that pro's will just swing way slower if they had to use a smaller head, I mean, look at the below picture.

 

You have to define what size that head needs to be and that isn't something you can just guess at and be right.  It would require testing and lots of it.  Now, please don't get worked up over the above stuff I posted.  We can have a good discussion on this, in fact I invite it and would love for you to come back and provide some evidence and facts to show where I am wrong.  I am cool with that.  I think we will both be hard pressed though to find conclusive evidence regardless, because I don't know of any pro's that have thrown a roughly 3 wood sized head on a driver shaft and practiced with it enough to know what they can and cannot do with it off a short tee.  Based on what I have seen over the years (represented in only a very small amount in the data above of course), I am lead to believe it wouldn't make a meaningful difference on distance long term.

 

I prefer to make friends not enemies on here, and I would prefer we start over and try to do the friends thing rather than the alternative.  What say you?

 

FYI, if something isn't clear, or you don't understand where I am going with it, please ask, I will do my best to explain my thinking.

The mini driver in question isn’t near mini enough.  

[milesgiles]

9 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

The sad thing is, you think you have quantified endlessly your point when I have yet to see anything that does anything close.  I even asked you to point me to an entry where you have in the past.  I proved pro's are not afraid to swing a fairway wood full swing, quigley helped show you can still get close to or as good of numbers with a mini driver off a 3/4 inch tee with a full length driver shaft which I had proposed earlier in this thread.  I showed the strike consistency of a no name pga pro which is more than good enough for a mini driver.  What more do you need?  I will admit  all that is not definitive but it sure is a heck of a lot more in quantity and specificity than your efforts so far. 

 

I challenge you to do better.  Maybe if you try harder you will make a much clearer and better case for what you say? 

 

You haven’t played tournament golf. You are obviously incapable of even acknowledging there might, just might be a difference in what happens mentally and physically on the practice tee, and what happens down the stretch under pressure. 

[bladehunter]

11 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

The sad thing is, you think you have quantified endlessly your point when I have yet to see anything that does anything close.  I even asked you to point me to an entry where you have in the past.  I proved pro's are not afraid to swing a fairway wood full swing, quigley helped show you can still get close to or as good of numbers with a mini driver off a 3/4 inch tee with a full length driver shaft which I had proposed earlier in this thread.  I showed the strike consistency of a no name pga pro which is more than good enough for a mini driver.  What more do you need?  I will admit  all that is not definitive but it sure is a heck of a lot more in quantity and specificity than your efforts so far. 

 

I challenge you to do better.  Maybe if you try harder you will make a much clearer and better case for what you say? 

Man. This last bit.  I’m starting to lean toward the others statements.  Let’s not get too full of ourselves here.  As if some point has been proven.      
 

the synopsis of your argument is “ let’s see some data and hopefully take 10 years to get it , so I can keep on with what I want to play with “.  Right or wrong ? 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

Nuts, was hoping I wouldn't get tagged anymore today and that some others would take a turn for a while.  Oh well.

 

So, explain what you wanted proof of then.

-It was in context to people learning to swing harder.  If you or anyone ever thought I was implying that pro's never miss the sweet spot, that is simply wrong.  It is common knowledge that even pro's are not robot.  I simply don't think there is evidence to support that they will swing any less hard based on the typical pro ball striking ability and consistency.  

 

If the argument is now how much change is necessary and the need to test it I guess we can have that but I don't know why we would.

-First, the RBs need to quantify exactly what amount of distance or challenge roll back they think will accomplish the goal they wish to achieve.  Second, they need to determine the best way to do such that this issue doesn't come back, but that they also don't go too far (which I think is impossible btw).  This would require testing.  I have tried to demonstrate, over and over and over again, why a very large rollback would be needed to prevent this issue from ever arising again but I swear most of you don't try and follow your thought to the end or look at it in a critical enough way.  You can't just pick an era and run with it.  These are not the same crop of players.  This is a crop of players many with Tiger prime swing speed and confidence.  We have to quantify what they are capable of, and what the future player will be capable of and test and make a plan to mitigate that so this doesn't come back.  I showed you what Kyle Berkshire can do with a persimmon and a modern ball.  I have show that wound balls were held to the same speed limits that modern balls are.  I have shown that we have no real world data of a non age diminished wound ball performance.  You have to test this stuff otherwise you are just guessing.  What will OEMs do to fight the changes?  That is also part of the big picture.  I can go on and on about this.  I am a little frustrated that so many on here don't try to think about all of the consequences or countermeasures that will or likely will occur after said change.  For me its so plain and easy to see, for you guys it doesn't seem to be which is why I am trying to show you.

 

There are so many other issues with most all of these ideas or desires you guys that want a roll back have that I just don't have the time to explain.  I have already binged this thread too much.  I don't back down from a reply, especially when someone misunderstands me and it can get repeated or distorted more like a bad game of telephone so I get called back here a lot more than I would prefer. 

 

If making the postulation that hitting a 460cc driver and consistently getting good results, is easier than the same with a persimmon-like driver, is downplaying the skill level of current players, then I guess I am guilty of downplaying the skill level of current players.  I simply don't see how you can make an argument to the contrary when there are pros on record stating as much.  (They would have to spend more time practicing driver to get consistent results with a less forgiving driver.)

 

-I didn't say it isn't easier to hit a 460 driver, you are misunderstanding.  I said a persimmon like driver isn't going to prevent players from swinging as hard as they do today in general and isn't going to roll back distance enough on tour.  I showed the contact of a pro golfer on a modern driver several pages ago.  They would play just fine with a persimmon with that kind of strike grouping.  Are they going to have more miss hits with a persimmon?  Sure, but it isn't going to prevent them from swinging hard.  Heck, with a lower COR, you can basically have peace of mind that if you don't catch it perfect, it will not go 350 into the crap, it will go less and maybe even stay in the fairway.  This is why you test instead of make subjective statements about things and try to pass them off as truth or fact.

 

-All I will say about your last statement regarding playing older equipment.  I hear what you are saying but you are not a pro.  Your experience won't be equivalent to what we would see on the tour, which is why it would have to be tested.  There is a big picture with all of this that I see, but you guys don't seem to.  One of the most important variables you guys seem to overlook or downplay the importance of is the impact of a change to the bulk of the golfing population.  You have to consider how they will receive a change and if that endangers the enjoyment or sustaining of the game as it is today.  That is a huge part of the issue that the RBs have to consider and rolling back to a persimmon sized head, or even a 975D size would not be well taken by the masses, and it also wouldn't solve the problem at hand.  When you guys make these claims, you also forget how that weaves into the OEM part of the deal.  They will be making the best "persimmon" possible within the rules.  They will be making the best 975D possible within the rules.  RBs would have to define those rules for club design to future proof things.  That is another reason you don't just say the solution is to just make them use "x" or "y" from "z" era and that will solve everything.

 

-Smash, I appreciate your usually thoughtful and respectful responses.  Please don't look at my response as anything but the same.  I have more and more appreciated and enjoyed your responses and I don't mean to be disrespectful with my wording.  I admit, I ranted a bit but understand I don't mean any insult or anything even if I use strong matter of fact tone in my response.

 

 

-It was in context to people learning to swing harder.  If you or anyone ever thought I was implying that pro's never miss the sweet spot, that is simply wrong.  It is common knowledge that even pro's are not robot.  I simply don't think there is evidence to support that they will swing any less hard based on the typical pro ball striking ability and consistency.  

I misunderstood then.  Hard to say what they will do now, but I'll just point out that with clubs and balls performing the way I am suggesting, the pros of that era did not swing all out.  I can't, nor will attempt, to quantify what percentage or swing speed they were swinging at however.

 

-First, the RBs need to quantify exactly what amount of distance or challenge roll back they think will accomplish the goal they wish to achieve.

Their stated goal is no more distance gains.  It is in the distance study.  That doesn't imply a "rollback" to me but a freeze.  But with a freeze you will not stop someone from hitting the gym and gaining distance.  We've created this rollback discussion not the RBs.

 

-Second, they need to determine the best way to do such that this issue doesn't come back, but that they also don't go too far (which I think is impossible btw).

I don't think they can.  How do you know how to control what you don't know?  They didn't know what having a highly optimized 460cc clubhead was capable of when the rule was made.  No different than the ball rule.  You pick a number out in the future that they allowed for advancements to, but didn't/couldn't anticipate how that would actually play.  This is just speculation but I think the combination of all of those limits being met, and further optimization outside of the engineered limits (shafts, MOI, COG, etc.)  They didn't do a real good job of an "engineering advancement stack up" to determine what all of those advances, known and unknown, would produce in the hands of someone swinging with an optimized swing at 120+ mph.  Up until about 8-10 years ago we didn't really understand launch angle and angle of attack well.  It took trackman and the like to get us there.

 

-You can't just pick an era and run with it. 

I don't see why not.  It is a subjective want to begin with.  It is rather easy to pick an era with the playing atmosphere you like and adopt the equipment specifications common then.  That surely doesn't take into account your bulked up dudes though.

 

-These are not the same crop of players.  This is a crop of players many with Tiger prime swing speed and confidence.  We have to quantify what they are capable of, and what the future player will be capable of and test and make a plan to mitigate that so this doesn't come back.  I showed you what Kyle Berkshire can do with a persimmon and a modern ball. 

Simply put he swings out of his shoes.  If someone wanted in 1985 to do the same they were welcome to.  Watch that long drive competition at Shoal Creek at the PGA.  One guy had a 48" persimmon driver.  He couldn't out drive Payne Stewart and he certainly wasn't playing in the actual PGA 'ship.  So go to persimmon-like specs and neuter it again 5% if you are inclined.

The Curtis Strange's and Seve's weren't the Billy Casper's and Sam Snead's but they played the same type of equipment (minus maybe the ball tech).

 

I wouldn't let the fact that a BDC or Kyle Berkshire is going to come along and drive it 310 keep me from making changes now that will stem the tide for a while of adding distance to courses or not and result in them playing as driver-short irons on most all holes.

 

-I have show that wound balls were held to the same speed limits that modern balls are.

And a car that is only engineered to go 50 is not hampered by a speed limit that is 55.  Similarly, at the time, you were at the extent of what the ball technology could provide in terms of speed.  Now, it still may be "below the limit," but much closer to it.  Perhaps that limit was thought to be more than reasonable when made but has now proven not to be.  Same with COR and the other variables that are limited and measured.  Adjust them and fit the game to the courses.

 

-All I will say about your last statement regarding playing older equipment.  I hear what you are saying but you are not a pro.  Your experience won't be equivalent to what we would see on the tour, which is why it would have to be tested.

So you are good with making driving range analogies but I cannot?  What do you hope to find from this testing exactly?  So they have a much better ability at hitting it straight and they can swing faster than I can.  Let's assume all variables are the same minus they are required to play a club with persimmon-like specs.  What would you expect to find happen with this testing?  The ball goes shorter.  COR is less, it stands to reason it will not go as far.  The shaft would be capped at a shorter length, so less clubhead speed, so less distance.  The steel shaft would be heavier so it would slow it down a touch, so the ball would go shorter.  Do you expect for something else to happen?

 

 

RB's won't do this but...

1) CAP the driver cc at 250cc

2) COR is .75 (persimmon is around .78 and current limit is .83)

3) Max length of driver is 110cm.

4) Drivers must be single material.  All titanium is fine.  All steel is fine.  All unobtainium is fine.

5) Shafts would have a minimum weight per inch.  I don't know what it would be but it would mirror a steel driver shaft.

6) Face size would be capped at a limit of so many square cm.  

 

I'd address driving irons somehow similarly to prevent guys from getting around the rules by using a hot face, hollow body driving iron.  All other woods would fall under the same specs as above.

 

People played golf in the 80's with similar tech.  If they like golf they'll play with my stuff too.

[smashdn]

Double post.  Was having issues on comp at the time.

Edited November 4, 2020 by smashdn
Double post.

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Where’s the proof it’s where it needs to be now ?  See what I mean ?  

 

No I don't.  Do you understand my position is not to prove it needs to be where it is now for anything related to how the game "should" be played.  I proved that to accomplish the goal of the RBs, the roll back would be severe and negatively effect a disproportionate amount of innocent people that mean more to the game than small percentage of pro's.  When making decisions, usually a statement like that alone, is enough to make a person realize the endeavor isn't worth the damage it will do.

 

[smashdn]

5 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No I don't.  Do you understand my position is not to prove it needs to be where it is now for anything related to how the game "should" be played.  I proved that to accomplish the goal of the RBs, the roll back would be severe and negatively effect a disproportionate amount of innocent people that mean more to the game than small percentage of pro's.  When making decisions, usually a statement like that alone, is enough to make a person realize the endeavor isn't worth the damage it will do.

 

 

How though?

 

Seems like this would be akin to giving everyone 100 dollars now and then asking for repayment of the 100 dollars later.  The net gain/loss is nothing, it is perception.

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No I don't.  Do you understand my position is not to prove it needs to be where it is now for anything related to how the game "should" be played.  I proved that to accomplish the goal of the RBs, the roll back would be severe and negatively effect a disproportionate amount of innocent people that mean more to the game than small percentage of pro's.  When making decisions, usually a statement like that alone, is enough to make a person realize the endeavor isn't worth the damage it will do.

 

So you’re taking the stance of status quo must be kept ...... and yet require some science to backup a rollback ?   That’s the point I made earlier.  Requiring a study and yet not giving any input on a metric to decide what is good for the game and what isnt , which essentially stonewalls the very scientific study you ask for.  

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

You haven’t played tournament golf. You are obviously incapable of even acknowledging there might, just might be a difference in what happens mentally and physically on the practice tee, and what happens down the stretch under pressure. 

 

You are too funny man.  First posting I must not have a job or a wife, then that what I say isn't valid because I am not as good as you or play with pro golfers, and now that I have never played tournament golf.  Did you base that on my handicap or something?

 

For your information, I have played in various tournaments and leagues off and on for the past 10 years.  Yes, a mid handicapper plays in leagues and in tournaments.  Shocking isn't it?  I know nerves, and yet, somehow, I can still middle my 3 wood full speed more often than not in front of people.  Who woulda thunk?

[nsxguy]

 

 

[milesgiles]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No I don't.  Do you understand my position is not to prove it needs to be where it is now for anything related to how the game "should" be played.  I proved that to accomplish the goal of the RBs, the roll back would be severe and negatively effect a disproportionate amount of innocent people that mean more to the game than small percentage of pro's.  When making decisions, usually a statement like that alone, is enough to make a person realize the endeavor isn't worth the damage it will do.

 

 

There you go again.. ‘proved’ (!!!)

 

you have zero clue what ‘proof’ entails. It’s nothing more than a contention that changing certain equipment specs would hurt amateurs.. and if we are talking my specific idea of limiting driver size, I have already contended that will help the average amateur rather than hurt them since they’d have to learn how to swing properly 

[clevited]

Just now, smashdn said:

 

How though?

 

Seems like this would be akin to giving everyone 100 dollars now and then asking for repayment of the 100 dollars later.  The net gain/loss is nothing, it is perception.

 

I have posted the logic behind how big the roll back would have to be a 100 times.  Surely you know I stand firm at that 20% rollback amount, just like Jack said.  I don't think I need to explain how that negatively effects the golfing population at large.  Even if it wasn't 20%, it will effect the golfing population negatively and or not even be worth doing because it won't solve the problem while also effecting the golfing population negatively. 

[bscinstnct]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No I don't.  Do you understand my position is not to prove it needs to be where it is now for anything related to how the game "should" be played.  I proved that to accomplish the goal of the RBs, the roll back would be severe and negatively effect a disproportionate amount of innocent people that mean more to the game than small percentage of pro's.  When making decisions, usually a statement like that alone, is enough to make a person realize the endeavor isn't worth the damage it will do.

 

 

Where is the rollback amount actually stated by the RBs?

 

Ive seen Jack and Monty say 20%, but never seen any stated, intended, percentage by the USGA or RA. 

[bladehunter]

Just now, clevited said:

 

I have posted the logic behind how big the roll back would have to be a 100 times.  Surely you know I stand firm at that 20% rollback amount, just like Jack said.  I don't think I need to explain how that negatively effects the golfing population at large.  Even if it wasn't 20%, it will effect the golfing population negatively and or not even be worth doing because it won't solve the problem while also effecting the golfing population negatively. 

I disagree. That’s not a given that it’s a overall negative.  Sure. Some tantrums will come. But one generation later the game is better , back where it should have never left.  Tantrums aren’t fatal.  

[clevited]

Just now, bscinstnct said:

 

Where is the rollback amount actually stated by the RBs?

 

Ive seen Jack and Monty say 20%, but never seen any stated, intended, percentage by the USGA or RA. 

 

The haven't decided upon that yet.  2 years ago when these threads showed up in mass, I showed why 20% makes sense and does the job of effectively reducing the best future drivers of the ball to around 300 yard average.  That was from a pure ball nerf standpoint.  You get more complicated if you try and work unstable clubheads into the fold.  Tis why I keep saying, quantify, test and plan a slow implementation to do it right if you are going to do it at all.

[milesgiles]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I have posted the logic behind how big the roll back would have to be a 100 times.  Surely you know I stand firm at that 20% rollback amount, just like Jack said.  I don't think I need to explain how that negatively effects the golfing population at large.  Even if it wasn't 20%, it will effect the golfing population negatively and or not even be worth doing because it won't solve the problem while also effecting the golfing population negatively. 

 

Trouble is you’re taking this ‘make the ball 20% shorter’ argument as being negative to amateurs, when in fact the ball has barely been discussed in the last few pages.