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

[Mookie91]

33 minutes ago, golfandfishing said:

I think this actually supports the argument for limiting equipment. The course has been lengthened several times with new tees and also closed for a lengthy period for a remodel since then. All that in an effort to mitigate advances made largely since 2001 that allow players to swing at higher speed without an equal trade off in allowing for a miss hit. Keeping Calc’s tournament record relevant mostly relies on altering the course to keep up with today’s equipment. 

They’ve done it primarily with bunkering and green complex changes at Scottsdale 

[LeoLeo99]

11 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

Here is what pisses me off, from a totally selfish level.  As a person who doesn't hit it very far, mostly from a lot of physical injuries I have suffered through my 55 years on this earth most of those chasing a little white ball.  When I hit a modern driver I do hit it longer, they are also more forgiving, however I learned to play with the old equipment, many years playing the old TM Burner driver which may have been smaller than some persimmon, with a DGS300, and a persimmon prior.  With the new stuff at my swing speed I am not that much longer, BUT when you have 125 mph swing speed you pick up a bunch of yards, probably 40 to 50.  All because of the driver.  The higher swing speed makes the face spring that much more, while the average guy just doesn't get that much out of it.  

 

If we both picked up 20 yards, then fine, but I may be picking up 20 and they pick up 50, it's the rich getting richer.  I used to play golf with some long hitters and I could hang, now it's like we play a different game.  The harder you hit the ball, the more the face springs.  Before the COR limits, the rule book said something to the effect of "not having spring like or trampoline effect"  It was never scientifically defined, but the spirit of the rule was that you were hitting the ball with something that was a hard surface that did not propel the ball, now they market something that used to violate the rule book.  

 

My proposal would be to make drivers that spring the ball same at all speeds, the shorter people would still gain a few yards, while the bigger hitters would only hit the ball farther because they swing it faster.  Of course being able to swing 100% and still get a decent shot off, and longer lighter shafts will still help increase swing speed, but I view that as an equitable advantage.  Same with custom fitting.

 

 

 

I hear you.  The USGARA should have done what you propose years ago.  But they left the barn door open and are trying to get a redo on equipment rules.  

[Mookie91]

25 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

Here is what pisses me off, from a totally selfish level.  As a person who doesn't hit it very far, mostly from a lot of physical injuries I have suffered through my 55 years on this earth most of those chasing a little white ball.  When I hit a modern driver I do hit it longer, they are also more forgiving, however I learned to play with the old equipment, many years playing the old TM Burner driver which may have been smaller than some persimmon, with a DGS300, and a persimmon prior.  With the new stuff at my swing speed I am not that much longer, BUT when you have 125 mph swing speed you pick up a bunch of yards, probably 40 to 50.  All because of the driver.  The higher swing speed makes the face spring that much more, while the average guy just doesn't get that much out of it.  

 

If we both picked up 20 yards, then fine, but I may be picking up 20 and they pick up 50, it's the rich getting richer.  I used to play golf with some long hitters and I could hang, now it's like we play a different game.  The harder you hit the ball, the more the face springs.  Before the COR limits, the rule book said something to the effect of "not having spring like or trampoline effect"  It was never scientifically defined, but the spirit of the rule was that you were hitting the ball with something that was a hard surface that did not propel the ball, now they market something that used to violate the rule book.  

 

My proposal would be to make drivers that spring the ball same at all speeds, the shorter people would still gain a few yards, while the bigger hitters would only hit the ball farther because they swing it faster.  Of course being able to swing 100% and still get a decent shot off, and longer lighter shafts will still help increase swing speed, but I view that as an equitable advantage.  Same with custom fitting.

 

 

The only issue that I haven’t seen addressed in great detail is course conditions.  You can’t look at raw data of driving distance stats to make these decisions.  You need to look at carry distance, temperature, course elevation, etc..  I play in Central New York when we get temps over 75 for a few days in July and August.  We may get 10-15 yards of roll in July in August as well.  Even the longest bombers around here rarely break 290 in carry 99 percent of the time.  The course that we play are soft and slow.  For us oldies look no further than how Oak Hill plays.  It’s definitely different than Southern Hills in August.

[Ferguson]

To enforce playing from the correct tees, perhaps people should wear lanyards with ID holders?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Ferguson

[gvogel]

40 minutes ago, Strategery said:

1. Not a rebuttal.

2. Not a rebuttal.

3. Not a rebuttal.

4. Not a rebuttal.

 

Rory is not a deep thinker. Well known.

Let's not forget that he actually said he would enjoy playing harder equipment under local rules, because he feels that he has the talent to benefit as compared to the average tour pro.  I happen to agree with him, and I would like to see it happen.

 

Probably first it happens in the US Open, the Open Championship, and the Masters.  Fred Ridley really doesn't want to lengthen 13, but the club will have to unless the equipment is changed.  The best players wouldn't skip those tournaments because of the prestige of winning anyone of them.

[null]

The average weekender has no idea what tees they're "supposed to" be using I'd say. None of the guidelines these organizations put out filter down to the average player. Why not have, on the first tee at least, a sign which tells them? Just an example don't worry about the numbers.

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by null

[Mookie91]

4 minutes ago, null said:

The average weekender has no idea what tees they're "supposed to" be using I'd say. None of the guidelines these organizations put out filter down to the average player. Why not have, on the first tee at least, a sign which tells them?

 

I like that but to be honest my driver distance would allow gold but I’d probably play blue.  The group I play with typically will play the tee that’s closest to 6,000 but doesn’t exceed 6,500.  We would opt to play 5,900 instead of 6,400.  It’s just more fun.

[Cwebb]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Matt Wolfe whiffed it twice with a fairway wood off the tee last round US open.

 

not only is your statement not true, if it was..

 

WHY DO THEY NEED A 460 THEN??

 

They don't need a 460 and they don't need bigger fairway woods

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, weezel514 said:

Big to differ a little. I feel Rory is a nice guy who happens to be one of the deepest thinkers and one of the most qualified voices in golf today.

I’m a big fan of Rory. Just have had a different impression and you may very well be right. He always has seemed pretty well grounded and always seems to have the strength of his convictions which I respect. 

[HiTrajLoSpin]

Hmm, so Rory's a deep thinker ... yeah, when faced with resolving a problem, don't actually bother to identify and study the underlying issues in depth, just appear to take the high ground by pontificating about such measures being a waste of time and money, and not growing the game.

[kasting333]

22 minutes ago, HiTrajLoSpin said:

Hmm, so Rory's a deep thinker ... yeah, when faced with resolving a problem, don't actually bother to identify and study the underlying issues in depth, just appear to take the high ground by pontificating about such measures being a waste of time and money, and not growing the game.

I mean the usga and R&A had a study done to confirm their opinion, nothing else. Let’s quit pretending it’s anything substantive or scientific. 

[Pepperturbo]

I agree with Rory.  He was correct when saying the tours minimal number of players should not be used as reason to rein in equipment all the way down to the amateur golfer around the world. 

 

Honestly, I don't know anyone, at private or public tracks that supports that line of thinking.  Seems the USGA/R&A and maybe even the PGA are taking it upon themselves to garner control over massive segments of golf even some aligned markets.

 

Anyone ever wondered if the USGA & R&A and PGA may have an underlying agenda, that hasn't been noticed quite yet?   Some in the golf world have been quietly pushing for a pronounced World Tour, that may redefine, even absorb other Tours in other countries.  Take a moment and think outside the box about what has to happen to lead towards what some call the new world order.  I will leave that there.

 

Reining in distance across the equipment sector by rolling back equipment would rein in all up and coming big hitters regardless of where they are located.  Then there's this; using the cost of course lengthening to justify rolling back equipment suggests those in charge have the authority to step on the freedom of choice of course owners and tournaments everywhere.  Are people really in support of those organizations having that degree of control?  A limited number of men in different areas trying to seize control over what golf equipment manufactures produce, how and when tours are played and what professionals and amateurs alike can have in their bags.  Mind you, all the way down to what LGS sell, etc.  hmm... OK - back to your regularly schedule twilight zone.

 

 

[caniac6]

6 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Once again, stopping the longest players isn’t the issue.

 

lord help me 

So, they want to stop the average player?

[milesgiles]

20 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

So, they want to stop the average player?

 

Please just read the thread or any of the other three on the front page..

[caniac6]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

Please just read the thread or any of the other three on the front page..

I have. That's why I didn't understand your comment about not going after the longest player. I thought the whole point was to reduce the distance people are hitting it.

[MMB1500]

1 hour ago, null said:

The average weekender has no idea what tees they're "supposed to" be using I'd say. None of the guidelines these organizations put out filter down to the average player. Why not have, on the first tee at least, a sign which tells them? Just an example don't worry about the numbers.

 

 

Given most amateurs grossly overestimate how far they hit it, even betterwould be a sign saying " Your Driver Distance Minus 20%" 

[Loki]

To everyone that says the players are better athletes and this is why they hit the ball further and this is the reason the USGA shouldn't do anything: This is incorrect. More forgiving clubs and balls have allowed players to swing harder without penalty at a younger age. The ball comes off the face so much quicker than a persimmon driver or even a '80's muscle back iron allowing a straighter shot due to less (sideways) spin. What did Jack say to parents not too long ago? Tell your kids to swing as hard as possible, develop the muscles to swing fast. We'll fix the direction later. Guess what? Only the very few can fix the direction later.

 

Give the tour players balata balls and a set of my MacGregor MCX woods and irons. Let's make them bend the ball and start creating shots. Tiger said once that his persimmon driver was only 5 yards short of his then metal driver (1999?), IF he hit it on the screws.

 

Otherwise,  leave it alone. I couldn't care less what equipment a tour player uses. Can't get it anyway. 

[dlygrisse]

6 minutes ago, MMB1500 said:

 

Given most amateurs grossly overestimate how far they hit it, even betterwould be a sign saying " Your Driver Distance Minus 20%" 

I'd just add 20 yards to each of those and call it good.  

[milesgiles]

27 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I have. That's why I didn't understand your comment about not going after the longest player. I thought the whole point was to reduce the distance people are hitting it.

 

Read my first post in the thread about Faldo suggesting short tees, it’s as thorough as I could make it 

[caniac6]

6 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Read my first post in the thread about Faldo suggesting short tees, it’s as thorough as I could make it 

I just read it, and it seemed to outline steps to reduce the distance people hit the ball. Isn't that exactly what Rory, and a lot of folks are saying doesn't need to happen? Mabye I don't get what you are trying to say, but I think golf is just fine, and the USGA and R&A are trying to fix a game that isn't broken. 

[milesgiles]

2 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I just read it, and it seemed to outline steps to reduce the distance people hit the ball. Isn't that exactly what Rory, and a lot of folks are saying doesn't need to happen? Mabye I don't get what you are trying to say, but I think golf is just fine, and the USGA and R&A are trying to fix a game that isn't broken. 

 

I don’t agree with Rory

[caniac6]

6 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I don’t agree with Rory

I might agree with you as far as it applies to the pro game, but do you thing reductions in distance needs to be applied at the club level? I don't, and that's what I took away from a lot of Rory's comments. I'm getting ready to grill some salmon, so it will be awhile before I can continue the conversation.

[Hawkeye77]

3 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I might agree with you as far as it applies to the pro game, but do you thing reductions in distance needs to be applied at the club level? I don't, and that's what I took away from a lot of Rory's comments. I'm getting ready to grill some salmon, so it will be awhile before I can continue the conversation.

A little Rigatoni with a black bean tomato sauce here! 

[Nard_S]

Don't agree with Rory.

[milesgiles]

25 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I might agree with you as far as it applies to the pro game, but do you thing reductions in distance needs to be applied at the club level? I don't, and that's what I took away from a lot of Rory's comments. I'm getting ready to grill some salmon, so it will be awhile before I can continue the conversation.

 

Its not reducing distance, it’s reducing distance on mishits. I will never understand a moderately skilled golfer needing or wanting to hit a club that is essentially impossible to miss with, ie the 460 cc driver.

 

the only people who are going to be that upset are not playing any serious competitive golf anyway, so could just carry on with a 460. I don’t see the issue 

[Loki]

32 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Its not reducing distance, it’s reducing distance on mishits. I will never understand a moderately skilled golfer needing or wanting to hit a club that is essentially impossible to miss with, ie the 460 cc driver.

You're joking right?

[golfday]

I'm with Rory. I don't understand why this is the crusade the USGA wants to fight and if I were in charge I would take a hard look at our Mission and project prioritization.

 

Things the USGA could focus on: increasing golf participation, making golf more accessible, bringing minorities into the game, holding great USGA events

 

Things the USGA does focus on: reducing distance

 

When I think about the USGA's and golf's biggest problems to solve, I don't see how "reducing the distances that pros hit the ball" solves any of them.

 

What problems does reducing distance that pros hit the ball solve?

- Some classic golf courses are (or will) no longer suitable for major events: that's true and sad, but is there a material impact on the game of golf if Merion is no longer suitable in 2050? Is there really any material negative impact of this?

- Side note that I do agree that there COULD be a real problem someday that few golf courses would still exist that could hold a major event, but we are a long long way from that and a roll back now is not needed to fix what COULD be a problem

- The style of pro golf is changing: I understand that some people do not like this, but there is a debate as to whether or not this is a problem. I don't think there is any evidence that it actually is a problem

 

That's all I've got. Can't think of any other problems that reducing pro distance could solve, but I can think of problems that it would cause.

 

 

[Mookie91]

31 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Its not reducing distance, it’s reducing distance on mishits. I will never understand a moderately skilled golfer needing or wanting to hit a club that is essentially impossible to miss with, ie the 460 cc driver.

 

the only people who are going to be that upset are not playing any serious competitive golf anyway, so could just carry on with a 460. I don’t see the issue 

You seem like a good dude but either your being hyperbolic here or a heel.  I’d consider myself a moderately skilled golfer as a single digit and I miss hit my SIM Max all the time.

[golfday]

5 hours ago, dlygrisse said:

Here is what pisses me off, from a totally selfish level.  As a person who doesn't hit it very far, mostly from a lot of physical injuries I have suffered through my 55 years on this earth most of those chasing a little white ball.  When I hit a modern driver I do hit it longer, they are also more forgiving, however I learned to play with the old equipment, many years playing the old TM Burner driver which may have been smaller than some persimmon, with a DGS300, and a persimmon prior.  With the new stuff at my swing speed I am not that much longer, BUT when you have 125 mph swing speed you pick up a bunch of yards, probably 40 to 50.  All because of the driver.  The higher swing speed makes the face spring that much more, while the average guy just doesn't get that much out of it.  

 

If we both picked up 20 yards, then fine, but I may be picking up 20 and they pick up 50, it's the rich getting richer.  I used to play golf with some long hitters and I could hang, now it's like we play a different game.  The harder you hit the ball, the more the face springs.  Before the COR limits, the rule book said something to the effect of "not having spring like or trampoline effect"  It was never scientifically defined, but the spirit of the rule was that you were hitting the ball with something that was a hard surface that did not propel the ball, now they market something that used to violate the rule book.  

 

My proposal would be to make drivers that spring the ball same at all speeds, the shorter people would still gain a few yards, while the bigger hitters would only hit the ball farther because they swing it faster.  Of course being able to swing 100% and still get a decent shot off, and longer lighter shafts will still help increase swing speed, but I view that as an equitable advantage.  Same with custom fitting.

 

 

This is an interesting idea, but I’ll not sure that it’s physically possible. Curious if there are any engineers on the board that weigh in.

 

However, that example of one guy picking up 50 yards and you picking up 20 has got to be hyperbole. If that’s serious either your playing partner is getting better (faster club and more sweet spot hits), you need to hit the trackman, or you’re losing club head speed. 

[tiderider]

tell you what ... i'll offer to go around and play all the great, private courses ... record my score and distances with each shot ... report back to everyone, rors included ... and then we can all make a decision ... 

 

anyone got an in at Cypress? ... tia ...