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

[dlygrisse]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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. 😉

How was this formula created, what kind of balls, shafts, tee height, heads optimized for what spin parameters?  Personally unless you do the test with actual Trackman data, with a robot and human testing I have a hard time believing it.  Golf isn't played on a calculator.  

 

COR aside there are numerous other factors that need to be considered.  The biggest is probably the difference in spin generated by the higher speed players with the old equipment, combo of driver and ball.  

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

This topic came up elsewhere online, and another poster brought up the idea of reducing bag size from 14 down to maybe 10 or 12...make each shot a little more thoughtful.

[mark m]

Some more info for your consideration. Thinkingplus has done a nice job in this thread.

 

Springlike effect or COR in Driver (franklygolf.com)

 

 

 

The info in these charts below is interesting. It shows a lower carry distance of 192 yards with CHS at 85 than what you typically see in those swing speed charts which are everywhere. This would have smash factor at 120.7/85 = 1.42. The swing speed charts typically show a carry distance of 192 yards at 80 CHS and 216 yards for 90 CHS, which suggests 85 should be around 204(?) Perhaps smash factor is off on the latter swing speed charts? (Something must be different.)

 

ROBOT TESTED: Which golf ball suits my game? | Today's Golfer

 

 

 

 

I really don't want to see bifurication. I could see a smaller max head size (260-330) for a slighlty smaller sweet spot to put risk/reward more in the mix, and COR set to .810, along with a slight tweaking of the ball. Look above, some of the softer balls go around 10 less right now. Tom Wishon mentions somewhere that at 110 CHS - the difference from .820 COR to .830 COR is 4.2 yards. Some minor tweaks - half club and half ball - could make a 120 CHS swing go around 295 carry instead of 317/320. But if implementing those things leads to a more than 10 yard loss for those swinging around 85-90 - it won't go over well. You would either see bifurcation or no change. Doing nothing might be the best bet. We'll see if they can make a persuasive case.

Edited February 6, 2021 by mark m
info added

[CAT GOLFER]

Major sports as a whole have lost more and more touch with their respective fan bases, and as a result I feel fans are losing more and more interest. It becomes entertainment, which is plenty, varied, and evolving.

[phizzy30]

I'm with Rory as well.  Most fans of the game find it more enjoyable watching a tournament where the pros are hitting it 300+yards off the tee and making an insane amount of birdies and eagles.  Then there's talk about the golf purists that want to dial the golf ball back, blah blah blah.  Yeah well, watch as the ratings drop.  It's bad for golf especially the business side of things.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm having a blast watching the guys blasting 340+yard drives this week out in the desert where the air is thin.  Btw,  Steve Stricker is in second place and was one of the co-leaders earlier, who's considered short by PGA tour standards.  Golf is about more than prodigious distance off the tee.    

Edited February 6, 2021 by phizzy30

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, dlygrisse said:

How was this formula created, what kind of balls, shafts, tee height, heads optimized for what spin parameters?  Personally unless you do the test with actual Trackman data, with a robot and human testing I have a hard time believing it.  Golf isn't played on a calculator.  

 

COR aside there are numerous other factors that need to be considered.  The biggest is probably the difference in spin generated by the higher speed players with the old equipment, combo of driver and ball.  

You don't believe physics?  I can't help you then.  BTW, all else being equal was mentioned multiple times.

[milesgiles]

21 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

I'm with Rory as well.  Most fans of the game find it more enjoyable watching a tournament where the pros are hitting it 300+yards off the tee and making an insane amount of birdies and eagles.  Then there's talk about the golf purists that want to dial the golf ball back, blah blah blah.  Yeah well, watch as the ratings drop.  It's bad for golf especially the business side of things.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm having a blast watching the guys blasting 340+yard drives this week out in the desert where the air is thin.  Btw,  Steve Stricker is in second place and was one of the co-leaders earlier, who's considered short by PGA tour standards.  Golf is about more than prodigious distance off the tee.    

 

No idea how a 340 yard drive today is more entertaining than a 270 yard drive by Nicklaus back in the day.. they look the same on the telly and not much different in person 

[HiTrajLoSpin]

Just to be clear, the relationship between ball speed and COR, club head speed (CHS), ball mass (mB), club head mass (mCH) is:

 

ball speed = [(1 + COR) * CHS ] / [1 + (mB/mCH)]

 

That is, ball speed is proportional to the ratio of (1 + COR) values, not COR values.

 

So, comparing modern (CORmd) vs persimmon (CORpd) driver faces, the ratio of ball speeds is

 

(1 + CORmd) / (1 + CORpd) = (1 + 0.83) / (1 + 0.78) = 1.028 or 2.8%

 

not 

 

(CORmd) / (CORpd) = 0.83 / 0.78 = 1.064 or 6.4%

 

If we assume distance is directly proportional to ball speed, then the ratio of the respective distances is also 1.028, not 1.064 .

 

Of course, this doesn't speak to the effect of increased MOI due to the 460cc driver vs persimmon drivers.

Edited February 6, 2021 by HiTrajLoSpin

[CasualLie]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

No idea how a 340 yard drive today is more entertaining than a 270 yard drive by Nicklaus back in the day.. they look the same on the telly and not much different in person 

 

Seriously?  In Jack's day, TV sucked.  Golf was pretty much unwatchable.  Most course conditions were like Muni golf today.  

 

I'm guessing Jack in his prime hit 270-280 tee shots because that's what the course called for.  We know he was quite capable of bombing it over 300, but there was no point.

 

The 340 yard bomb is more entertaining because I can actually see it on HD, there's an element of risk/reward being challenged, and many of those shots are hit quite accurately.  It is a marvel.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by CasualLie

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, CasualLie said:

 

Seriously?  In Jack's day, TV sucked.  Golf was pretty much unwatchable.  Most course conditions were like Muni golf today.  

 

I'm guessing Jack in his prime hit 270-280 tee shots because that's what the course called for.  We know he was quite capable of bombing it over 300, but there was no point.

 

The 340 yard bomb is more entertaining because I can actually see it on HD, there's an element of risk/reward being challenged, and many of those shots are hit quite accurately.  It is a marvel.

 

 

 

The quality of tv coverage is irrelevant, I’m saying what if they were hitting it 270 now? No difference to the viewer at all. Jack hit it 280 if he was really going for it, that’s what he wrote in his books.

 

we’ll have to also disagree on risk/reward. Bombing it over the top of all the trouble is trying to take the risk out of it altogether

[phizzy30]

10 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

No idea how a 340 yard drive today is more entertaining than a 270 yard drive by Nicklaus back in the day.. they look the same on the telly and not much different in person 

I don't know about you, but when I hit 300+yard drives, I get a rush of adrenaline.  Almost as satisfying as making eagle on a par 5.  Of course the best feeling is shooting sub par, but how many of us can can actually do that on a consistent basis?  We have to take and embrace the little victories in life sometimes or else life can become miserable at times.  😉

[milesgiles]

20 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

I don't know about you, but when I hit 300+yard drives, I get a rush of adrenaline.  Almost as satisfying as making eagle on a par 5.  Of course the best feeling is shooting sub par, but how many of us can can actually do that on a consistent basis?  We have to take and embrace the little victories in life sometimes or else life can become miserable at times.  😉

 

Unlike most of wrx I don’t hit it 300, ever..

 

What I don’t get satisfaction from is a mishit that ends up fine because the face is so big.. 

[cmgolf]

Exactly. There ia a need to bring back the penalty of mishit. 
Swing as hard as you can without any consequences is not golf, it is long drive contest.

i really appreciate Rory as a player but he doesn’t represent a « normal » golfer. His game is based on distance. As a straight driver, he would remain a long hitter no matter what would be the new rules. Erratic long drivers would be the one penalised.

[caniac6]

53 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Unlike most of wrx I don’t hit it 300, ever..

 

What I don’t get satisfaction from is a mishit that ends up fine because the face is so big.. 

I see plenty of guys that hit it all over the face, and all over the place. I’d rather have the forgiveness of a driver than searching for balls all day.

[dlygrisse]

11 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You don't believe physics?  I can't help you then.  BTW, all else being equal was mentioned multiple times.

I believe there is more to the distance increase than just a COR equation. The spin reduction the longer hitters get is physics. The harder someone swing ps the more potential for spin. Often slower swingers need more spin. While your equation tells part of the story it doesn’t paint the entire picture. 

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, cmgolf said:

Exactly. There ia a need to bring back the penalty of mishit. 
Swing as hard as you can without any consequences is not golf, it is long drive contest.

i really appreciate Rory as a player but he doesn’t represent a « normal » golfer. His game is based on distance. As a straight driver, he would remain a long hitter no matter what would be the new rules. Erratic long drivers would be the one penalised.

 

Unquestionably it’s guys like Rory who would benefit the most from a traditional size driver. God knows how many majors Tiger would have won without the 460 

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, caniac6 said:

I see plenty of guys that hit it all over the face, and all over the place. I’d rather have the forgiveness of a driver than searching for balls all day.

 

Wouldnt work like that though. Smaller face equals a more controlled swing equals fewer balls 40 yards into the dunch

[gvogel]

14 hours ago, phizzy30 said:

I'm with Rory as well.  Most fans of the game find it more enjoyable watching a tournament where the pros are hitting it 300+yards off the tee and making an insane amount of birdies and eagles.  Then there's talk about the golf purists that want to dial the golf ball back, blah blah blah.  Yeah well, watch as the ratings drop.  It's bad for golf especially the business side of things.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm having a blast watching the guys blasting 340+yard drives this week out in the desert where the air is thin.  Btw,  Steve Stricker is in second place and was one of the co-leaders earlier, who's considered short by PGA tour standards.  Golf is about more than prodigious distance off the tee.    

After Rory roasted the USGA/R&A for spending all the time and dollars on the study, he did say that he would welcome more difficult equipment for tour players.  That means bifurcation, and it also might mean average drives of less than 300 yards.  Or did you miss that part of his statement?

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, dlygrisse said:

I believe there is more to the distance increase than just a COR equation. The spin reduction the longer hitters get is physics. The harder someone swing ps the more potential for spin. Often slower swingers need more spin. While your equation tells part of the story it doesn’t paint the entire picture. 

Every swing speed has an optimal set of launch/spin characteristics.  Consistent swings can take advantage of the best launch conditions.  If someone wanted to go to the trouble and could find a manufacturer willing, they could optimize weight distribution and shaft type to achieve the same optimal conditions albeit at the shorter distance limited by the COR.

 

I also agree that the distance seen in today's game depends on lots of factors in addition to COR.  Agronomy is a big contributor.  Launch monitors are a contributor.  Bigger, stronger athletes playing golf at the highest level.  Lots of stuff involved.

[gvogel]

13 hours ago, CasualLie said:

 

Seriously?  In Jack's day, TV sucked.  Golf was pretty much unwatchable.  Most course conditions were like Muni golf today.  

 

I'm guessing Jack in his prime hit 270-280 tee shots because that's what the course called for.  We know he was quite capable of bombing it over 300, but there was no point.

 

The 340 yard bomb is more entertaining because I can actually see it on HD, there's an element of risk/reward being challenged, and many of those shots are hit quite accurately.  It is a marvel.

 

 

I really like the lines superimposed on the fairway to show driving distance.  They start at 290 (?) and go out to 330(?).  You can really see the longest drives.

 

But if the grid went from 260 to 280 or 285, because that was how far the players were hitting the ball, that would be just as cool.  The guy hitting it 282 would be really long, compared to his peers.

 

Distance is relative.  Temperature, elevation above sea level, moisture in the fairways, and especially wind all make distance relative.

[dcfas]

I believe there was a post after Winged Foot last year that caught my attention. A poster suggested creating a ball that will not fly farther than 300 yards. The ball will perform exactly the same as a current ball up to a certain speed, then no more. 300 yards seems to be a reasonable number. Apologies to the poster whose name/tag I cannot recall.

[milesgiles]

9 minutes ago, dcfas said:

I believe there was a post after Winged Foot last year that caught my attention. A poster suggested creating a ball that will not fly farther than 300 yards. The ball will perform exactly the same as a current ball up to a certain speed, then no more. 300 yards seems to be a reasonable number. Apologies to the poster whose name/tag I cannot recall.

 

Im President of the equipment rollback campaign and that is utterly ridiculous 

[milesgiles]

12 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I really like the lines superimposed on the fairway to show driving distance.  They start at 290 (?) and go out to 330(?).  You can really see the longest drives.

 

But if the grid went from 260 to 280 or 285, because that was how far the players were hitting the ball, that would be just as cool.  The guy hitting it 282 would be really long, compared to his peers.

 

Distance is relative.  Temperature, elevation above sea level, moisture in the fairways, and especially wind all make distance relative.

 

It is staggering how people can’t see this 

[milesgiles]

23 minutes ago, gvogel said:

After Rory roasted the USGA/R&A for spending all the time and dollars on the study, he did say that he would welcome more difficult equipment for tour players.  That means bifurcation, and it also might mean average drives of less than 300 yards.  Or did you miss that part of his statement?

 

Which is why I wasn’t hugely interested in his statement since he wants two contradictory things

 

he is correct in the time and money spent on achieving nothing however 

[CasualLie]

So at 300 a parachute comes out?  It can't be the ball starts to disintegrate at 300 because the player would just declare it damaged and use a new one.  

 

Not sure how the ball can be designed so precisely to limit distance right at 300.  But I can see the dim witted USGA messing with ball properties to limit distance for all and the OEMs going back to the AI machine redesigning clubs, starting a new arms race, get the marketing machine to dream up ridiculous names and explanations, and in the end who pays for this disaster?  The consumer; aka the average golfer; aka the people the USGA are actually supposed to protect.

 

 

[golfandfishing]

20 minutes ago, dcfas said:

I believe there was a post after Winged Foot last year that caught my attention. A poster suggested creating a ball that will not fly farther than 300 yards. The ball will perform exactly the same as a current ball up to a certain speed, then no more. 300 yards seems to be a reasonable number. Apologies to the poster whose name/tag I cannot recall.

Does it just come to a screeching halt somehow at 3 bills?  Are we putting tiny pilots into the ball and they just crash at 300?

[bigred90gt]

On 2/4/2021 at 8:39 AM, milesgiles said:

 

And this can be done. Nobody ‘needs’ a 460. Golf has been played quite happily for 250 years without it. The game isn’t any more popular with it, there are more courses shutting than opening 

You’re not really correlating 460cc drivers to course closures, are you? 

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, cmgolf said:

Exactly. There ia a need to bring back the penalty of mishit. 
Swing as hard as you can without any consequences is not golf, it is long drive contest.

i really appreciate Rory as a player but he doesn’t represent a « normal » golfer. His game is based on distance. As a straight driver, he would remain a long hitter no matter what would be the new rules. Erratic long drivers would be the one penalised.

 

This is a good “real world” vid comparing old vs new on the course.

 

 

[mark m]

A couple of random thoughts:

 

1. We currently see a big variance in carry distance when we play under different weather conditions and/or altitudes. I live and play most of my rounds in Minnesota. Playing when it's 42 degrees versus 90 degrees is a huge difference. Not just in what the equipment will do, but what our bodies will do as well. Those differences can easily be 20-30 yards on drives. Same when we go from mile high altitude to sea level. So you make adjustments based on experience and results and play on. You may move up a tee to compensate. Anyway, some of the posts here seem over the top. We deal with significant differences all the time.

 

2.It looks like the driving force is the R&A - more so than the USGA - in an effort to keep the traditional links courses relevant. I would like to see those courses remain relevant as well. Strategic courses present choices and you make choices depending on your game. Any idiot can make a course super penal. That doesn't take good judgment or talent. Target golf - no choice - hit it here or else. What fun is that to play? Or even to watch on TV? It's like watching a car race to see the crashes.

 

3. Lots of players don't trust the ruling bodies to make a good decision. The perception is they do things top-down in regards to the rules and handicap system. They are not good at making a public case and building consensus.  And they have had numerous complaints in their course choices and set-ups for the high profile US Open. This distance debate has turned into a 10+ year soap opera. This has gone on way too long. We'll see if they are able to make a case. Some new faces are likely needed.

Edited February 6, 2021 by mark m

[caniac6]

37 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Im President of the equipment rollback campaign and that is utterly ridiculous 

Do you use rolled back equipment?