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

[sshadow2]

I think it's without a doubt a thought that deep in all players minds. Any rules change will affect how they play their game, their own enjoyment of it, and how much money they can potentially make. On either side of the opinion line. Less successful players will be happier than more successful players.

 

Completely side with Rory on this.

 

Grass height, thinner fairways, creating more angles, rethinking all those birdie-able holes is the answer. Big hitters don't win all the time. Don't be mad because some trained enough to get out of thick grass or hit the fairway half the time with their bombs. Do this then see if equipment is really the problem. Do this across the PGA schedule and it probably would NOT cost millions of dollars to do. Less mowing? Cheaper! And I'm not talking about moving trees, tee boxes, or bunkers either.

 

Want to ban something? Ban the gym so that less driven players (pun intended) will be more on par (again) with players busting their behinds to get stronger (eventually).

Edited February 5, 2021 by sshadow2

[ThinkingPlus]

21 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.

 

 

Actually that isn't true.  The clubface acting as a spring is linear (F = -kx where k is the spring constant).  So ball speed is proportional to clubhead speed no matter how fast you swing.  There is no magic threshold above which the dynamics become non-linear.

 

On another note, going to substantially smaller driver heads might result in higher clubhead speeds with the same effort because of better aerodynamics.  The law of unintended consequences.

[ThinkingPlus]

18 hours ago, Loki said:

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. 

It's about 6.5% (0.83/0.78).

[dlygrisse]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually that isn't true.  The clubface acting as a spring is linear (F = -kx where k is the spring constant).  So ball speed is proportional to clubhead speed no matter how fast you swing.  There is no magic threshold above which the dynamics become non-linear.

 

On another note, going to substantially smaller driver heads might result in higher clubhead speeds with the same effort because of better aerodynamics.  The law of unintended consequences.

So, are you saying that if you take someone with a CHS of 85, and one with 125,  Have them both hit a persimmon and a Modern driver.  Both will gain distance, but are you saying the distance gained will be equal?  Both will gain 40 yards for example?  

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, dlygrisse said:

So, are you saying that if you take someone with a CHS of 85, and one with 125,  Have them both hit a persimmon and a Modern driver.  Both will gain distance, but are you saying the distance gained will be equal?  Both will gain 40 yards for example?  

No.  The distance gained will be proportional to the swing speed difference times the respective CORs all else being equal.  

[dlygrisse]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It's about 6.5% (0.83/0.78).

There is also a video with Tiger, I think maybe it's on the TM site...not sure.   Anyway he talks about taking his old Cobra driver that he won the '97 masters with, X100 shaft, 43.5" etc. to the range... Anyway he said he just can't hit it any more.  His modern 3 wood goes a lot longer.  Tigers speed is down quite a bit because of age and injury, he still probably swings over 115 mph on average, and he is saying the modern 3 wood is longer than 1990's tech.  driver.  

Edited February 5, 2021 by dlygrisse

[dlygrisse]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

No.  The distance gained will be proportional to the swing speed difference times the respective CORs all else being equal.  

Well that is my point.  The bigger hitters get exponentially longer.  

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, dlygrisse said:

Well that is my point.  The bigger hitters get exponentially longer.  

It is a linear process, not exponential.  That is what proportional means.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

There is also a video with Tiger, I think maybe it's on the TM site...not sure.   Anyway he talks about taking his old Cobra driver that he won the '97 masters with, X100 shaft, 43.5" etc.  Anyway he said he just can't hit it any more.  His modern 3 wood goes a lot longer.  Tigers speed is down quite a bit because of age and injury, he still probably swings over 115 mph on average, and he is saying the modern 3 wood is longer than 1990's tech.  driver.  

Modern fairway woods probably have a higher COR than his old Cobra driver.  The graphite shaft weight is probably half what that X100 Fork and Hoe weighs (not quite, but close).  It is also anecdotal, not measured data.  Does Tiger believe it?  Yes.  Is it true?  Maybe, even probably, but the beliefs of tour pros (even Tiger) should always be taken with a grain of salt.

[dlygrisse]

14 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It is a linear process, not exponential.  That is what proportional means.

Let me rephrase.  Longer hitter gain more yards than shorter hitters.  All else being equal.  Going from the older tech to newer tech.  

[Krt22]

6 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

Let me rephrase.  Longer hitter gain more yards than shorter hitters.  All else being equal.  Going from the older tech to newer tech.  

No really, ball speed wise it's mostly linear (fractional amount difference lost due to heat/sound), but distance wise it is not given aerodynamic drag goes with the square of velocity.  Percentage wise, shorter hitters would likely lose more distance with a roll back

Edited February 5, 2021 by Krt22

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

Let me rephrase.  Longer hitter gain more yards than shorter hitters.  All else being equal.  Going from the older tech to newer tech.  

As a percentage, they gained the same going from persimmon to modern titanium.  As an absolute number of yards, the higher swing speed player gains a little bit more depending on the difference in swing speed.  This is a linear relationship, not exponential.

 

With persimmon (0.78 COR)

Player A - 200 yards

Player B - 250 yards

Difference of 50 yards

 

With modern titanium (0.83 COR)

Player A - 212.8 yards

Player B - 266 yards

Difference of 53.2 yards

[null]

I think dlygrisse has a point that absolute yardage matters on a golf course. I don't think looking at it in purely relative % terms tells the whole story.

[clevited]

This is just physics. The harder you hit it, the further it can go.  What is often forgotten are the draw backs to hitting it so hard.  You have to be even more precise with your direction, contact and face closure rate in order to make use of the faster swing.  Larger potential for the 120 mph swinger vs the 100 mph swinger, but the 120 mph person has much more to lose if they get it wrong.  Pro's make it look easy, its not.

 

I think the above needs to be kept in mind when arguing for equality in distance.

 

[golfday]

Is it fair to say that technology initially helped better (regardless of swing speed) more than lesser players?

 

My thought being that .83 COR is in the sweet spot of the club, which better players hit more often. Over time the sweet spot is getting larger and clubs are getting more forgiving across the face, but at first it seems like there are haves and have nots for .83. Haves = those that can hit that part of the club face.

 

Just a hypothesis but if it's correct, I think maybe that's why people get confused when they read that the average golfers drive is pretty static, but the pros drives are increasing. Pop ups are pop ups, and average golfers are still hitting the edges of their club faces and not getting as much benefit.

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually that isn't true.  The clubface acting as a spring is linear (F = -kx where k is the spring constant).  So ball speed is proportional to clubhead speed no matter how fast you swing.  There is no magic threshold above which the dynamics become non-linear.

 

On another note, going to substantially smaller driver heads might result in higher clubhead speeds with the same effort because of better aerodynamics.  The law of unintended consequences.

Since avoiding physics in HS because the instructor was a jerk, and rightly understanding I wouldn't need to understand much of it the rest of my life, I have no rational basis for saying this but, . . . . . . . it was interesting to read from someone who does understand physics this was a linear relationship, I would have guessed the other way if I was on a game show!  

[Nard_S]

Somewhat funny we live in an era where enthusiasts are hitting a #7i 200 yards and then getting in uproar about how gear changes at the Tour level will effect them. Of course it wouldn't, but that don't matter. I've been a golf fan since 86 Masters, but when the Pro V ball and low spin driver became ubiquitous I stopped watching. Maybe 6 tournaments get my attention but bomb & gouge from a spectator view is boring or at least more boring than previous golf. From a user view, I like big Ti and Pro V, but as a fan, it's destroyed the mid and long iron approach shot and all the calculus involved with working a ball that got butt hurt in the wind.

 

 One would think the future of golf, as a business is Tiger. In him we had the best iron player to ever play the game, a guy with biggest bag of skills ever. Yet, the tech that serves us, us the wee little men in some ways has stomped all over that. Stomps all over his legacy because our vanity demands the Pro guy use what we need to use. Which is gear that takes command out of the hands. Gear that dumbs down & simplifies. Raises launch, lowers spin, raises ball speed & lowers risk/reward. If golf's future is DeChambeau, or maybe Rory & DJ dialing in their wedge on any particular weekend, or a long drive comp with a putt at the end, it will be golf's loss and ours' too. 

 

[dlygrisse]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

As a percentage, they gained the same going from persimmon to modern titanium.  As an absolute number of yards, the higher swing speed player gains a little bit more depending on the difference in swing speed.  This is a linear relationship, not exponential.

 

With persimmon (0.78 COR)

Player A - 200 yards

Player B - 250 yards

Difference of 50 yards

 

With modern titanium (0.83 COR)

Player A - 212.8 yards

Player B - 266 yards  

Difference of 53.2 yards

Do you have the data when "player C" hits it around 300 yards?  I am guessing Player B has a swing speed in the 105 -ish range.  What happens when you go to 120 to 130?

[ThinkingPlus]

30 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Since avoiding physics in HS because the instructor was a jerk, and rightly understanding I wouldn't need to understand much of it the rest of my life, I have no rational basis for saying this but, . . . . . . . it was interesting to read from someone who does understand physics this was a linear relationship, I would have guessed the other way if I was on a game show!  

Understanding springs is one of the more important aspects of dynamics.  To first order, everything is a spring.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, dlygrisse said:

Do you have the data when "player C" hits it around 300 yards?  I am guessing Player B has a swing speed in the 105 -ish range.  What happens when you go to 120 to 130?

Well, I calculated those values.  Anybody can perform those calculations.  The shortcut for differences between any 2 players is ~1.065 * difference in yardage with persimmon will give you how much extra differential distance the longer player will accrue vs. the shorter player when transitioning to modern tech.

 

A 300 yard player with persimmon will hit the ball 3.2 yards further than the 250 yard persimmon player when both start using modern tech.  As an aside, my impression based on the countless distance is evil threads here on WRX, was that there was no such thing as a 300 yard drive with persimmon. 😉

[Pepperturbo]

@caniac6 As I interpret the alleged reasoning; it's the price of RE bound to ongoing expansion of holes at tournament venue facilities, purportedly needed to keep pace with big hitters as they get stronger and technology improves helping them to get longer, and longer.  In other words, a sliver segment of golfers that hit the ball huge and USGA & R&A hackers thinks it's their responsibility to reign big hitters in. 

 

I am 70 and quite fit for someone my age.  Been working out all my life.  But must acknowledge technology from Titleist - Golf balls, Fujikura - Ventus Red shafts, and Mitsubishi - Tensei AV White AM2 iron shafts.  I am reaching distances that amaze even me. 

 

Even though amateurs are not threatening the same tournament venues, those lunatics want to mess with ALL golfers.  Are they power hungry or what?  It Seems as if those loons fail to realize, there is a limit to how strong a golfer can get, to play good golf.  And based on my lifelong exercise regime, and amateur athletic history, we've reached that limit.

 

So, what is the real underlying motivation?

Edited February 5, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[straightshot7]

Grow the rough so it's actually penalizing. Somewhere between the current level and the US Open level. The average rough on Tour is too easy.

[GSDriver]

100% agree with Rory.  This is just stupid.

 

being distance is relative, so if the 350 yard bombers get knocked back to say 300 yards, then those who hit it 300 will be down to 270 or whatever turns out to be.

[caniac6]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

@caniac6 As I interpret the alleged reasoning; it's the price of RE bound to ongoing expansion of holes at tournament venue facilities, purportedly needed to keep pace with big hitters as they get stronger and technology improves helping them to get longer, and longer.  In other words, a sliver segment of golfers that hit the ball huge and USGA & R&A hackers thinks it's their responsibility to reign big hitters in. 

 

I am 70 and quite fit for someone my age.  Been working out all my life.  But must acknowledge technology from Titleist - Golf balls, Fujikura - Ventus Red shafts, and Mitsubishi - Tensei AV White AM2 iron shafts.  I am reaching distances that amaze even me. 

 

Even though amateurs are not threatening the same tournament venues, those lunatics want to mess with ALL golfers.  Are they power hungry or what?  It Seems as if those loons fail to realize, there is a limit to how strong a golfer can get, to play good golf.  And based on my lifelong exercise regime, and amateur athletic history, we've reached that limit.

 

So, what is the real underlying motivation?

I really think the USGA has no clue. I have a lot more faith in whatever the PGA of America says about distance. I would guarantee very few teaching pros have ever had a student that wanted to hit the ball shorter. Also, I am like you. I am 66, in decent shape, and still hit the ball well. I play three times per week, and practice three times per week, so I'm putting in the work. For some pin head to take away the distance that I've worked hard to maintain would be a huge disappointment.  I want to have fun, and it's fun to hit the ball far.

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, straightshot7 said:

Grow the rough so it's actually penalizing. Somewhere between the current level and the US Open level. The average rough on Tour is too easy.

And dont cut the fairways to run faster than your average muni

[caniac6]

Here's a solution- Don't play big tournaments at the courses that are too short to host those tournaments. Let the members continue to enjoy their courses. Play tournaments at the thousands of courses capable of hosting them.

[Krt22]

9 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Here's a solution- Don't play big tournaments at the courses that are too short to host those tournaments. Let the members continue to enjoy their courses. Play tournaments at the thousands of courses capable of hosting them.

But the history! 

[straightshot7]

38 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

And dont cut the fairways to run faster than your average muni

 

Yeah. There are things that can be done.

 

Don't we have a couple tournaments every year where the winning score is less than -5? Where a majority of the best players in the world are shooting over par?

Don't we have tournaments where the winning score is less/worse than -10?

 

So is the game really too easy in those tournaments? Is distance really a problem in those tournaments? 

 

Long and straight should be rewarded. 

Too many of the PGA Tour stops are just setup too easy. They can grow the rough, soften the fairways, dry the greens, etc. and easily make scores higher if they want to. 

[Krt22]

5 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

 

Yeah. There are things that can be done.

 

Don't we have a couple tournaments every year where the winning score is less than -5? Where a majority of the best players in the world are shooting over par?

Don't we have tournaments where the winning score is less/worse than -10?

 

So is the game really too easy in those tournaments? Is distance really a problem in those tournaments? 

 

Long and straight should be rewarded. 

Too many of the PGA Tour stops are just setup too easy. They can grow the rough, soften the fairways, dry the greens, etc. and easily make scores higher if they want to. 

That is the thing, the tour and the USGA are worried about two very different things. The old geezers at the USGA are obsessed with the sanctity of par, but the PGA tour cares about ratings and revenue 

[caniac6]

According to Golf Magazine, the average drive for male amateur golfers  2019 is 216 yards. Ladies average would be less. That is the 99.9% Rory is talking about. Rollback means going backwards. How many other areas in life do we go backwards? This idea by the USGA is pure garbage.