Rory's Rant - Distance Insights Project - Your thoughts?

[milesgiles]

8 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They "need" a 460cc driver for the same reason you "need" one and I "need" one.

 

Because everyone else has one? What sort of argument is that?

[mahonie]

8 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They "need" a 460cc driver for the same reason you "need" one and I "need" one.

The one thing that never gets discussed is how out of context the 460cc driver is with the rest of the game. It should never have seen the light of day, but the genie is out of the bottle and it’s going to be hard to get it back in. It’s only now, after a few years of development that the full impact of that decision to allow 460cc is coming home to roost. Driving used to be the hardest skill in the game and now it’s the easiest. I would go as far to say that if you cannot consistently hit a 460cc driver you have no business playing golf in the first place.

 

Just think on this, if tennis had been run by the USGA:

 

[Sean2]

@mahoniebe a lot harder to swing one of those though, lol. 

[Sean2]

On 2/3/2021 at 8:39 PM, dcm325 said:

- Lengthen the rough.

- Soften the fairways

- Cut the fairways a little bit longer, so the ball doesn’t roll out 30 yards. 
- Firm up the greens... Muirfield last year??! 
 

I have been saying this for a number of years. Before they go all in with a roll back (which would require OEM's to retool, people having to pay for new equipment, etc.), why not try the aforementioned and see how it goes? 

 

One talking head on GC said if Rory sat down with the USGA and R&A he would change his mind and be all in for a roll back. 🙄

[BNGL]

46 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

I have been saying this for a number of years. Before they go all in with a roll back (which would require OEM's to retool, people having to pay for new equipment, etc.), why not try the aforementioned and see how it goes? 

 

One talking head on GC said if Rory sat down with the USGA and R&A he would change his mind and be all in for a roll back. 🙄

Firm greens like Muirfield last year is a really bad example because they were stripping greens for a renovation before the event was over. You couldn’t really get them that way without losing them, but since they were renovating anyways no one really cared. Same with TPC Sawgrass a few years ago, I’d never seen greens stimp consistently faster than 15 until that weekend at The Players, but bulldozers we’re starting Monday morning so no one cares if they got too firm and died.  

[ThinkingPlus]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Because everyone else has one? What sort of argument is that?

The truth.  Pros are paid to play what the OEMs design and manufacture.  They also compete with each other every week for a paycheck and can't give up even a slight advantage.

[milesgiles]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The truth.  Pros are paid to play what the OEMs design and manufacture.  They also compete with each other every week for a paycheck and can't give up even a slight advantage.

 

Yes I know.. so what’s the problem if they all had a 250 instead? 

 

NO OTHER SPORT LETS AMATEURS DICTATE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS 

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, mahonie said:

The one thing that never gets discussed is how out of context the 460cc driver is with the rest of the game. It should never have seen the light of day, but the genie is out of the bottle and it’s going to be hard to get it back in. It’s only now, after a few years of development that the full impact of that decision to allow 460cc is coming home to roost. Driving used to be the hardest skill in the game and now it’s the easiest. I would go as far to say that if you cannot consistently hit a 460cc driver you have no business playing golf in the first place.

 

Just think on this, if tennis had been run by the USGA:

 

The size increase in a tennis racquet head from traditional wood racquets to modern graphite ones is comparable to the size change from a persimmon wood to a modern driver.

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

Yes I know.. so what’s the problem if they all had a 250 instead? 

 

NO OTHER SPORT LETS AMATEURS DICTATE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS 

It isn't a pro sport.  It is primarily an amateur sport and/or game.  The OEMs can't sell a 250 cc head to most amateurs now that everyone knows a 460 cc head is better.

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The size increase in a tennis racquet head from traditional wood racquets to modern graphite ones is comparable to the size change from a persimmon wood to a modern driver.

 

And they ended up slowing the tennis ball down..

[dlygrisse]

23 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The size increase in a tennis racquet head from traditional wood racquets to modern graphite ones is comparable to the size change from a persimmon wood to a modern driver.

I completely agree with you on the impact the tech had on both sports. The switch in both from wood to modern tech changed the paradigm from finesse and control to raw power. 
 

although that photo may be accurate in terms of size increase ratio. What was persimmon, 150cc’s. ??  That would be over tripling in size. Tennis racquets have not tripled in size, if they did they would be almost unusable. 

[ThinkingPlus]

11 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

And they ended up slowing the tennis ball down..

Depends.  It was slowed down for fast surfaces.  It was sped up for slow surfaces like clay.  Apparently it has resulted in homogenization of the game to primarily baseline exchanges.  I would guess it would be subjective whether the changes were good or bad.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

I completely agree with you on the impact the tech had on both sports. The switch in both from wood to modern tech changed the paradigm from finesse and control to raw power. 
 

although that photo may be accurate in terms of size increase ratio. What was persimmon, 150cc’s. ??  That would be over tripling in size. Tennis racquets have not tripled in size, if they did they would be almost unusable. 

The effective size comparison has to include compensation for comparing an areal dependent size increase (tennis) vs. a volumetric increase in driver size for golf.  In tennis racquet head sizes went from 67 sq. in. to 100 sq. in.  That is an increase of 100/67 =  1.49.  The clubhead volume has increased by about 3.  To compare to an areal measurement you reduce the volumetric change by the 2/3 power.  So 3^(2/3) = ~2.  So golf driver clubhead has gotten a bit larger by comparison although both have reached a somewhat optimal size.

[milesgiles]

10 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Depends.  It was slowed down for fast surfaces.  It was sped up for slow surfaces like clay.  Apparently it has resulted in homogenization of the game to primarily baseline exchanges.  I would guess it would be subjective whether the changes were good or bad.

 

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Depends.  It was slowed down for fast surfaces.  It was sped up for slow surfaces like clay.  Apparently it has resulted in homogenization of the game to primarily baseline exchanges.  I would guess it would be subjective whether the changes were good or bad.

 

I can’t see any evidence it was ever sped up for clay, but if it was that’s for a tiny number of tournaments per year.

 

for the overwhelming number of tournaments it was definitely slowed down, several times over the years.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

I can’t see any evidence it was ever sped up for clay, but if it was that’s for a tiny number of tournaments per year.

 

for the overwhelming number of tournaments it was definitely slowed down, several times over the years.

In 2001 the international federation went to 3 balls.  A fast ball with harder rubber, the standard ball, and a 6% larger ball with the same weight for fast surfaces.  I did not do an exhaustive search.

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

NO OTHER SPORT LETS AMATEURS DICTATE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS

Exactly.

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

In 2001 the international federation went to 3 balls.  A fast ball with harder rubber, the standard ball, and a 6% larger ball with the same weight for fast surfaces.  I did not do an exhaustive search.

 

On average, they play a slower ball than when they had wooden rackets and as players have gotten bigger and stronger. And they have done it repeatedly.

 

just because it doesn’t suit your argument doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

[milesgiles]

14 minutes ago, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

Exactly.

 

Anti rollbackers always seem to resort to flippancy sooner or later. Curious 

[ThinkingPlus]

16 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

On average, they play a slower ball than when they had wooden rackets and as players have gotten bigger and stronger. And they have done it repeatedly.

 

just because it doesn’t suit your argument doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

And I never said it suited my argument or not.  These arguments are all subjective anyway.  I don't think a distance rollback is necessary because it will hurt the games of millions of amateurs and I don't care if elite male players can no longer play tournaments at historic old courses.  Finally, the RBs have tried limiting equipment in the past and they aren't good at it because, frankly, they aren't smart enough.  Every time they step on themselves, we all pay for it.

[dlygrisse]

Wedgy says, “ hold my 60” driver”. 319 yards baby!

 

 

 

[mahonie]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The size increase in a tennis racquet head from traditional wood racquets to modern graphite ones is comparable to the size change from a persimmon wood to a modern driver.

I have to disagree. Traditional tennis racquets were around 67 square inches, modern racquets are limited to 125 square inches. On that basis, modern drivers should have maxed out at 360-380cc.

The other area where tennis differs is that they have different speeds of ball to suit court conditions...perhaps what the USGA/R&A are looking at with the ‘local rule’ scenario?

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Anti rollbackers always seem to resort to flippancy sooner or later. Curious 

You're an amateur trying to dictate the rules and regulations.

[milesgiles]

16 minutes ago, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

You're an amateur trying to dictate the rules and regulations.

 

The anti roll backers are quite consistent in one belief:

 

it makes no difference to the pro’s how big the clubhead is but they simply HAVE to use a 460 because that’s what the manufacturers are trying to sell to the masses.

 

in other words it’s amateurs like yourself, who think the sky will fall in if the 460 disappears, who are dictating how we all have to play. Not me.

 

btw, I’m pretty sure pro’s are well represented on both the R and A and usga committees (without looking it up)

[BNGL]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

The anti roll backers are quite consistent in one belief:

 

it makes no difference to the pro’s how big the clubhead is but they simply HAVE to use a 460 because that’s what the manufacturers are trying to sell to the masses.

 

in other words it’s amateurs like yourself, who think the sky will fall in if the 460 disappears, who are dictating how we all have to play. Not me.

 

btw, I’m pretty sure pro’s are well represented on both the R and A and usga committees (without looking it up)

I’m not sure about that last part, I don’t think there’s too many former working for the USGA. Jason Gore obviously, I know there was a few high level am players but not a lot of tour professionals if memory serves. 
 

That was one of the advantages of the Tour, is a quite a few of those guys working for the Tour played a season or two on the PGA Tour, nothing significant but still reached that level. 
 

That’s the biggest problem I have with the USGA is that it’s an amateur organization governing the professional game. The only reason the USGA was founded was because Newport CC and St. Andrews Golf Club both held an event called the National Championship (CB MacDonald finished runner up in both). To avoid any confusion the Amateur Golf Association of the United States (later the USGA) was founded to unite the title of National Amateur Champion under a common crown, US Amateur title. Stick to the amateur game, focus on growing the game, creating initiatives to introduce young people and retain those people as players. Let the elite one percent of one percent play their game.

[Nard_S]

Big Tennis fan & enthusiast back in the day. The power racket destroyed the game. The courts emptied out too.

[mahonie]

6 hours ago, Nard_S said:

Big Tennis fan & enthusiast back in the day. The power racket destroyed the game. The courts emptied out too.

Same here. It used to be an annual tradition for the whole of the UK it seemed around the Wimbledon fortnight. Local parks all had free tennis courts and you had to queue to play (another British traditional!). Even having the most successful British tennis player for many generations in Andy Murray, interest has waned, nobody plays anymore and not that many watch. 

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

16 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

The anti roll backers are quite consistent in one belief:

 

it makes no difference to the pro’s how big the clubhead is but they simply HAVE to use a 460 because that’s what the manufacturers are trying to sell to the masses.

 

in other words it’s amateurs like yourself, who think the sky will fall in if the 460 disappears, who are dictating how we all have to play. Not me.

 

btw, I’m pretty sure pro’s are well represented on both the R and A and usga committees (without looking it up)

I'm trying to understand your argument here...

I (an amateur) am trying to dictate how the gear is marketed and sold because I enjoy modern clubs and have seen marked improvements in my game after investing in new gear.  But you (also an amateur) are not trying to dictate how gear is marketed and sold because you're insisting on rolling everything back to 1994?

[milesgiles]

59 minutes ago, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

I'm trying to understand your argument here...

I (an amateur) am trying to dictate how the gear is marketed and sold because I enjoy modern clubs and have seen marked improvements in my game after investing in new gear.  But you (also an amateur) are not trying to dictate how gear is marketed and sold because you're insisting on rolling everything back to 1994?

 

You lot have told me repeatedly that it makes no difference what the pro’s hit. Several have told me pro’s will be able to carry it damn near as far with a small head off a short tee. Therefore any rollback of driver size is pointless. 

 

Those in favour of a driver head size rollback don’t agree and think it will make a difference to how pro golf is played and who will play it well.

 

we’d all like to know who’s right, but we can’t find out because the job of the pro’s is to sell toasters on a stick to amateurs. 

 

I know full well the vast bulk of amateurs don’t want to give up their toasters. My voice, and a few others, is absolutely nothing. I’m in no position to dictate anything because I’m hugely outnumbered. 

 

Even if I can’t do anything about it though, I’m allowed to voice my opinion on a message board.

[J13]

Unless they plan on lowering CT limits the only way to effectively shorten distance is to roll the ball back.  Reducing the size of the driver will do very little for pro's.

[clevited]

Maybe I am misremembering, but wasn't there a time period where the 460 drivers were coming out but most tour players wouldn't touch them?  They were off putting for sure for me back then too and I preferred smaller heads.  Then players came up that grew up playing them and the size and shape wasn't off putting to them.  Then the tour players realized that the larger heads would potentially save them a shot here and there, as well as OEMs pushing for them to use the bigger ones so they would sell more.  Thats the time period where the cat was let out of the bag.  They are now letting other cats out of the bag like shaft weight, hollow headed irons etc.  

 

The RBs had plenty of time to do something and didn't.  Its too late to do anything regarding head size, COR, or the ball in my opinion, without receiving a ton of backlash, lawsuits etc.

 

If I were the RBs I would take Rory's advice regarding growing the game but also I would do the following things, and yes, some of them are roll backs but not drastic like head size, COR or ball performance which I am 100% against.

 

-Put a hard limit on overall club weight for each type of club (children excluded, and the limit could be such that certain head/shaft combinations today would be illegal eventually)

-No more hollow headed irons

-Tighten tolerances on all spring faced clubs and do so dynamically as technology allows OEMs to meet tighter and tighter tolerances.  This will stop the hot, up against the higher end of tolerance drivers and fairway woods.

-Better limit/lock down overall forgiveness potential of a club.

-Any other forward thinking limits that they can identify.

 

I am happy if they just lock up all of their loopholes that they can that could possibly allow clubs to go any further than they have with ball speed, forgiveness etc and then just let the subject of distance die.  I am also not unhappy if they don't do anything.  The above are just things I see they have overlooked and could do right now without pissing off too large of a percentage of golfers.  If they wait much longer though, then its too late.