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

[ThinkingPlus]

20 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The ironic thing is that all of this complaining only applies to approximately a dozen shots per round.

Zealots have no tolerances.

[mahonie]

5 hours ago, storm319 said:

I never said a ball cannot be designed to spin more, but it cannot be done  universally to reduce distance the amounts that are being suggested due to the fact that spin is largely a product of how the club is delivered at impact. Again, any realistically attainable spin mandate could be circumvented which would make the regulation change moot (essentially just changing the optimal club delivery parameters). 

If a ball is universally spinning more, it will be more difficult to keep it straight. Take my Justin Thomas example from a few posts back. He wouldn’t be missing the fairway 60 yards right anymore, he would be missing it 120 yards right. To keep it in play, he would have to change the optimal club delivery parameters. He would have to swing slower for a start and with more focus on club path to target to reduce the side spin imparted. 

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

No.  They go the distance the pro needs them to go.  Do you actually play golf?  It is really hard to tell at times.

 

if they have the same apex but go different distances then they MUST have different trajectories, which is where you are confused.

 

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, storm319 said:

Below are definitions for a couple of concepts that you seem to be struggling with:

 

choice

noun

1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

    

hy·poc·ri·sy

noun

1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

 

 

boring

 

extremely boring

 

stop spurging out no one cares

[storm319]

3 hours ago, mahonie said:

If a ball is universally spinning more, it will be more difficult to keep it straight. Take my Justin Thomas example from a few posts back. He wouldn’t be missing the fairway 60 yards right anymore, he would be missing it 120 yards right. To keep it in play, he would have to change the optimal club delivery parameters. He would have to swing slower for a start and with more focus on club path to target to reduce the side spin imparted. 

Again, I am saying that it is not possible to ensure that a ball spins more in all scenarios (or at least enough to result in a sizable reduction of distance that couldn’t be circumvented).

 

Also, do you realize how much more a ball would have to be spinning in order to double dispersion on a miss? If it is a purely directional miss (straight block or pull), the added spin will not make that much of a difference. Contrary to many people’s belief, wound balata balls did not spin as drastically higher than people claim (a few hundred rpms more under normal conditions, not thousands). The shot differences in the past were a combination of the ball (slightly more spin, lower durability, less efficient aerodynamics), the club (smaller, lighter, shorter length, lower MOI, higher relative CG vs the face midline, more drastic bulge and roll), the player, the course conditions, data analytics/measurement capabilities, and the money at stake all of which have all drastically changed. No single variable being rolled back will restore past styles of play. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by storm319

[geesecougar2]

He also said he'd endorse bifurcation. I'd be for that also, and I'd probably end up playing the equipment the pros do. I think many others would do the same. 

 

I think that's really what's needed to "solve" the distance "problem". They start making equipment to two different specs, and find that the "amateur" specs sell a fraction of the "pro" specs. Eventually they will stop making the amateur specs and we'll effectively be back to late 90's / early 2000's. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by geesecougar2

[storm319]

4 minutes ago, geesecougar2 said:

He also said he'd endorse bifurcation. I'd be for that also, and I'd probably end up playing the equipment the pros do. I think many others would do the same. 

 

I think that's really what's needed to "solve" the distance problem. They start making equipment to two different specs, and find that the "amateur" specs sell a fraction of the "pro" specs. Eventually they will stop making the amateur specs and we'll effectively be back to late 90's / early 2000's. 

I didn’t interpret his comments as a ringing endorsement for any equipment rollbacks. Of course he will adapt to any new regulations that are placed before him as will nearly all of the pros, but that doesn’t mean he supports it. Also his comments this time around seemed more genuine/candid vs the contrived statement he made last year.

[geesecougar2]

5 minutes ago, storm319 said:

I didn’t interpret his comments as a ringing endorsement for any equipment rollbacks. Of course he will adapt to any new regulations that are placed before him as will nearly all of the pros, but that doesn’t mean he supports it. Also his comments this time around seemed more genuine/candid vs the contrived statement he made last year.

 

Maybe not a ringing endorsement but he did say he thought it would give him an advantage:

 

“If they want to try to make the game more difficult for us, or try to incorporate more skill to the game, yeah, I’d be all for that, because I think it only benefits the better player, which I feel like I am,” he said. “Maybe they said that in terms of local rules and maybe some sort of bifurcation, but we are such a tiny portion of golf. Golf is way bigger than the professional golf. We’re such a tiny portion of it. It’s the other stuff that really matters, and that’s the stuff they need to concentrate.”

[gvogel]

14 minutes ago, storm319 said:

I didn’t interpret his comments as a ringing endorsement for any equipment rollbacks. Of course he will adapt to any new regulations that are placed before him as will nearly all of the pros, but that doesn’t mean he supports it. Also his comments this time around seemed more genuine/candid vs the contrived statement he made last year.

“Yeah, I would be all for that. If they want to try to make the game more difficult for us or more -- try to incorporate more skill to the game, yeah, I would be all for that, because I think it only benefits the better play, which I feel like I am.”

 

Not a ringing endorsement?  When someone says they would be all for that, I take it as strong endorsement.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

if they have the same apex but go different distances then they MUST have different trajectories, which is where you are confused.

 

I'm not confused. They go different trajectories because of different ball speed and launch angle.  I never said they didn't.  Still, a ball coming down from 100+ feet on a soft fairway will stop quickly whether it is a driver, 3W, or 5 iron.  Lawn darts.

[Soloman1]

 Y'all have fun. Going to be 79 and sunny today and I have a 10:54 tee time at a place with fast fairways and greens.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Soloman1

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, geesecougar2 said:

He also said he'd endorse bifurcation. I'd be for that also, and I'd probably end up playing the equipment the pros do. I think many others would do the same. 

 

I think that's really what's needed to "solve" the distance "problem". They start making equipment to two different specs, and find that the "amateur" specs sell a fraction of the "pro" specs. Eventually they will stop making the amateur specs and we'll effectively be back to late 90's / early 2000's. 

 

 

honestly ive thought this for a while

 

leave the 460s for those who really feel they cant play without them. Let the rest of us get back to some risk reward proper golf 

[storm319]

26 minutes ago, gvogel said:

“Yeah, I would be all for that. If they want to try to make the game more difficult for us or more -- try to incorporate more skill to the game, yeah, I would be all for that, because I think it only benefits the better play, which I feel like I am.”

 

Not a ringing endorsement?  When someone says they would be all for that, I take it as strong endorsement.

His recent response of the USGAs effort being a “huge waste of time and money” and “reeks of self-importance”  doesn’t scream endorsement IMHO. From what I could find his bifurcation comments were from a year ago and this recent interview was a very different.

[storm319]

30 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

honestly ive thought this for a while

 

leave the 460s for those who really feel they cant play without them. Let the rest of us get back to some risk reward proper golf 

How is that different than it is today? If you want to play with a club smaller than 460cc, there is nothing in the rules stopping you.
 

If a bifurcated rollback were to actually happen, it would more than likely be limited to the professional level and select high level amateur competition which I assume would not apply to your level of competition (although I am sure you would be advocating for the adoption of the local rule everywhere you play).

[Simpsonia]

Honestly, I don't think literally anybody, apart from Miles, has ever actually discussed rolling back 460s, so I'm not actually sure why anybody continues to even bother arguing about it. The argument for rollback has always been purely about the ball.

 

The legendary stewards of the sport who actively endorse rollback (Tiger, Jack) only discuss it in terms of a limited flight ball. They do so not to stop the long-hitters out of some animosity towards bomb and gouge play, they themselves were guilty of pushing those envelopes in their day. They do it to save historical golf courses from becoming ineligible for tour play from just being too damn easy for these guys. They do it because a lot of these courses can't just lengthen the tees, they reposition old fairway bunkers every 15-20 years. They are still businesses at the end of the day that have to cater either to the public or their members, members who don't hit the ball anywhere near the distance of the tour players. And growing out the rough to Winged Foot levels does nothing to hamper the long hitters, as the 2020 Open showed. 

 

Limited flight balls are the best compromise, imho. They keep historical courses eligible, and they don't do damn thing to disadvantage the longer hitters. The long hitters are going to still have the exact same proportional advantages with 15% limited flight. They're just hitting a 9-iron into the green now instead of a wedge, and the shorter players are now hitting their 6-7 irons in. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Simpsonia

[storm319]

45 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 Y'all have fun. Going to be 79 and sunny today and I have a 10:54 tee time at a place with fast fairways and greens.

 

 

Way to rub it in 😉 

 

It has been below zero here for literally half this month and my lawn is currently covered in ~1.5 ft of snow.

[Soloman1]

23 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Way to rub it in 😉 

 

It has been below zero here for literally half this month and my lawn is currently covered in ~1.5 ft of snow.

 

Yeah, sorry. I can appreciate that misery. I got tired of shoveling 2 feet of partly cloudy off my driveway decades ago. Chin up! Won't be long until you'll be enjoying your first round of the year.

 

I think the debate on distance might be solved in a generation or two, but I'm not holding my breath.

[geesecougar2]

50 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Honestly, I don't think literally anybody, apart from Miles, has ever actually discussed rolling back 460s, so I'm not actually sure why anybody continues to even bother arguing about it. The argument for rollback has always been purely about the ball.

 

The legendary stewards of the sport who actively endorse rollback (Tiger, Jack) only discuss it in terms of a limited flight ball. They do so not to stop the long-hitters out of some animosity towards bomb and gouge play, they themselves were guilty of pushing those envelopes in their day. They do it to save historical golf courses from becoming ineligible for tour play from just being too damn easy for these guys. They do it because a lot of these courses can't just lengthen the tees, they reposition old fairway bunkers every 15-20 years. They are still businesses at the end of the day that have to cater either to the public or their members, members who don't hit the ball anywhere near the distance of the tour players. And growing out the rough to Winged Foot levels does nothing to hamper the long hitters, as the 2020 Open showed. 

 

Limited flight balls are the best compromise, imho. They keep historical courses eligible, and they don't do damn thing to disadvantage the longer hitters. The long hitters are going to still have the exact same proportional advantages with 15% limited flight. They're just hitting a 9-iron into the green now instead of a wedge, and the shorter players are now hitting their 6-7 irons in. 

 

It really depends on whether it's a general rollback or bifurcation. If it's a general rollback, a nerfed ball is probably the best solution. If it's bifurcation, it will probably be a combination of nerfed ball, reduced clubhead sizes, loft limits, length limits, CT limits, etc. 

 

Ironically, many tend to assume that a general rollback would be less controversial/complicated to implement than bifurcation. But most likely it's the latter that would be more difficult: debates on which elements to roll back, by how much, etc. It would likely be quite a political battle between elite players, manufacturers, the governing bodies.

 

It would be especially complicated depending on how the various rulemaking constituents predict equipment adoption will evolve in a bifurcated world: will they continue to use the "amateur" spec, or will most eventually gravitate toward the "pro" spec? The answer to that would have significant impact on which elements would/should be rolled back. 

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

His recent response of the USGAs effort being a “huge waste of time and money” and “reeks of self-importance”  doesn’t scream endorsement IMHO. From what I could find his bifurcation comments were from a year ago and this recent interview was a very different.

No, his bifurcation comments were in the same interview after he accused the USGA/R&A of spending too much money on the issue.  Most of the press reported the first part, and not the bifurcation part.  But it all happened recently, at the same time. 

[Simpsonia]

4 minutes ago, geesecougar2 said:

 

It really depends on whether it's a general rollback or bifurcation. If it's a general rollback, a nerfed ball is probably the best solution. If it's bifurcation, it will probably be a combination of nerfed ball, reduced clubhead sizes, loft limits, length limits, CT limits, etc. 

 

Ironically, many tend to assume that a general rollback would be less controversial/complicated to implement than bifurcation. But most likely it's the latter that would be more difficult: debates on which elements to roll back, by how much, etc. It would likely be quite a political battle between elite players, manufacturers, the governing bodies.

 

It would be especially complicated depending on how the various rulemaking constituents predict equipment adoption will evolve in a bifurcated world: will they continue to use the "amateur" spec, or will most eventually gravitate toward the "pro" spec? The answer to that would have significant impact on which elements would/should be rolled back. 

Why would a bifurcation need to be all of those factors? There's no reason why they couldn't bifurcate ball only. Or hell just do ball bifurcation only on certain tour stops. Torrey Pines, Augusta, TPC Twin Cities - use whatever ball you want. Pebble, River Highlands, Spyglass, etc - use a 10-15% limited ball. Just base it on total yardage of the course. 

[mahonie]

7 hours ago, storm319 said:

Again, I am saying that it is not possible to ensure that a ball spins more in all scenarios (or at least enough to result in a sizable reduction of distance that couldn’t be circumvented).

 

Also, do you realize how much more a ball would have to be spinning in order to double dispersion on a miss? If it is a purely directional miss (straight block or pull), the added spin will not make that much of a difference. Contrary to many people’s belief, wound balata balls did not spin as drastically higher than people claim (a few hundred rpms more under normal conditions, not thousands). The shot differences in the past were a combination of the ball (slightly more spin, lower durability, less efficient aerodynamics), the club (smaller, lighter, shorter length, lower MOI, higher relative CG vs the face midline, more drastic bulge and roll), the player, the course conditions, data analytics/measurement capabilities, and the money at stake all of which have all drastically changed. No single variable being rolled back will restore past styles of play. 

You’re right. I don’t think there is any chance that past styles of play will be restored...not even close. That’s a real pity...the game now is just a pale imitation of what it once was.

[Barfolomew]

If basketball players were jumping higher then previous generations would they raise the rim?

 

How do you remove anyone's distance advantage?  If you make the ball go shorter its still relative, the long guys still going to out hit short knockers, but better then trying to make courses longer at every PGA course

[milesgiles]

49 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

If basketball players were jumping higher then previous generations would they raise the rim?

 

How do you remove anyone's distance advantage?  If you make the ball go shorter its still relative, the long guys still going to out hit short knockers, but better then trying to make courses longer at every PGA course

 

the 460 has lowered the height of the rim, using your anology. Any idiot can smash it miles now 

[milesgiles]

4 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

Why would a bifurcation need to be all of those factors? There's no reason why they couldn't bifurcate ball only. Or hell just do ball bifurcation only on certain tour stops. Torrey Pines, Augusta, TPC Twin Cities - use whatever ball you want. Pebble, River Highlands, Spyglass, etc - use a 10-15% limited ball. Just base it on total yardage of the course. 

 

if it was anywhere near as simple as that, it would have been done years ago.

[Barfolomew]

One day smashing 350+ off the tee will be the norm for top pros.... I've been waiting for the first to show up.  Bryson might be the first pioneer to make it a priority... when he started smashing I thought finally someone stepped up.

 

I thought it would be a large 6'6" type guy who can go 400' but has a killer short game and then everyone would follow suit...

[Simpsonia]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

9 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

Why would a bifurcation need to be all of those factors? There's no reason why they couldn't bifurcate ball only. Or hell just do ball bifurcation only on certain tour stops. Torrey Pines, Augusta, TPC Twin Cities - use whatever ball you want. Pebble, River Highlands, Spyglass, etc - use a 10-15% limited ball. Just base it on total yardage of the course. 

 

if it was anywhere near as simple as that, it would have been done years ago.

 

You throw that out there as if it were the word of god. It might be helpful to us mere mortals if you offered an explanation as to why a ball rollback/bifurcation wouldn't work. The limited flight ball is the solution currently advocated by the two GOATS, who I imagine understand a thing or two about the game and historical courses. 

[geesecougar2]

Rollbacks would be good for the pro game. You can't swing all out with 260cc Titleist 975D, let alone a tiny persimmon club. The harder you make it for them, the more the elite will separate themselves, the more legends will come around with 5+ majors. Parity isn't good for pro golf. 

 

For the recreational game, I think bifurcation would be a super fun addition to the golf culture. Imagine playing your buddies who are 10+ strokes worse than you, and how fun the wager discussions will become. Imagine gloating about beating your buddies with a 300cc driver and nerfed ball while they are using 460cc and nuclear balls. Imagine shaming your buddies for using the "scrub" gear. Imagine playing senior stick who is already sandbagging, and also whupping you while using the scrub spec on top while you're using the pro spec. Imagine the shame of going back to the amateur spec when your swing is off. It would be fascinating and add an entirely new layer to the game!

[geesecougar2]

13 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

Why would a bifurcation need to be all of those factors? There's no reason why they couldn't bifurcate ball only. Or hell just do ball bifurcation only on certain tour stops. Torrey Pines, Augusta, TPC Twin Cities - use whatever ball you want. Pebble, River Highlands, Spyglass, etc - use a 10-15% limited ball. Just base it on total yardage of the course. 

 

I think the distance is not  just from how far the ball goes, but also how forgiving the clubs are. You can go at a 460cc high MOI driver much harder than even a 260cc 975D, let alone a tiny persimmon, and still maintain accuracy. The size of the sweet spot has probably increased 4-8x in the last 25 years (don't quote me on that number). It changes the entire strategic approach to the game. Even if you attribute 80% of the distance gains to the ball and 20% to the clubhead, that 20% is still a big chunk. 

 

Politically, the OEMs make so much money on balls that rolling back the ball too much brings in a danger of the golf ball becoming a stagnant monopoly like the Spalding basketball and Rawlings baseball. There needs to be room to innovate (or at least feign innovation) and compete, otherwise the industry would implode. 

[milesgiles]

8 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

You throw that out there as if it were the word of god. It might be helpful to us mere mortals if you offered an explanation as to why a ball rollback/bifurcation wouldn't work. The limited flight ball is the solution currently advocated by the two GOATS, who I imagine understand a thing or two about the game and historical courses. 

 

I play with two ex pros's, what ball do they use? What ball do I use? What about a plus 4, or a mini tour guy?

 

My opinion (only my opinion, although Im right), is that its the driver, not the ball. From everything ive read, the distance potential of the ball hasnt changed in a hundred years. No one has a problem with a 210 yard 5 iron, especially as that 5 loft is probably a traditional 3 anyway.

 

The issue is the forgiveness of a mishit with a 460. Sport should identify the best, most skilful players, and it doesnt, it identifies the guy who swings the hardest while keeping it on the planet. 

 

The higher spinning ball is interesting as well. Anything that increases the penalty for a mishit is the way to go. No one is against distance per se. Theres no reason you shouldnt be able to hit it 300 plus, but you should have to work for it.

[storm319]

7 hours ago, geesecougar2 said:

Rollbacks would be good for the pro game. You can't swing all out with 260cc Titleist 975D, let alone a tiny persimmon club. The harder you make it for them, the more the elite will separate themselves, the more legends will come around with 5+ majors. Parity isn't good for pro golf. 

 

For the recreational game, I think bifurcation would be a super fun addition to the golf culture. Imagine playing your buddies who are 10+ strokes worse than you, and how fun the wager discussions will become. Imagine gloating about beating your buddies with a 300cc driver and nerfed ball while they are using 460cc and nuclear balls. Imagine shaming your buddies for using the "scrub" gear. Imagine playing senior stick who is already sandbagging, and also whupping you while using the scrub spec on top while you're using the pro spec. Imagine the shame of going back to the amateur spec when your swing is off. It would be fascinating and add an entirely new layer to the game!

There is literally nothing current rules stopping you from choosing to play with a driver less than 460cc so what you are suggesting is literally achievable without any additional regulation.