distance debate

[dmecca2]

12 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

They don't do it, because they don't actually want to curb distance.

They talk about it and make rule amendments (such as the 48" -> 46" driver change) which ultimately doesn't change much.

 

Some bitter jealous old men will complain about distance, say they're sick of watching Driver/Wedge every hole (which actually doesn't happen all that often), then pine for the old days and talk about how Nicklaus was the best ever.

Fans like seeing long drives.  Watching Bryson carry the entire pond at Bay Hill, or drive it 417 and end up only 72 yards out on a Par 5 in the Ryder Cup because he can make a forced carry is fun golf.

 

This was awesome, but if that line that bryson took was within reach of a normal human, this would be a poorly designed hole.

[Bye]

57 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

 

Without trying to be too harsh, so what? The courses of old need to be just that. Of old. If the course can adapt then it can stay relevant. New, better courses will sprout and the game will be better for it.

Very fair points. New isn’t always better though.
 

My point was more about how golf is now played. Personally I prefer to watch players that shape/flight the ball over the bombers.  It’s just personal preference.

[MUNIGRIT]

Is it me or are all of these proposed changes just jealousy and trying to fix something that isn't broke? Players are bigger better and faster and equipment is better. Every generation is that way.

[amace04]

6 minutes ago, farmer said:

I have an old Maltby book from 1974.  Titleist (Acushnet) standard lofts were  built off a 50* PW, then went down in 4* increments, so a 47* 9 iron etc.  If the chart someone posted way back is accurate, DJ is playing a 47* PW, so about a one club difference by loft.  Again, if the USGA forces the OEM's to nerf the ball, even by a small percentage, the paid-to-play folks are still going to get paid, they will not pay any of the R&D costs, the OEM's will not just eat that cost, so the costs are offloaded onto the recreational player.  If the elite are 10-15 yards shorter, what has been gained?

Nothing will have been gained, because Distance Is.Not.A.Problem.

 

The very logic of comparing specs from 1974 to today is problematic at best.

 

With new stronger athletes, lightweight club heads and improved shaft tech, golfers are swinging faster than they ever have been.  There's a functional reason that players irons aren't as high lofted as they were in the 70s.  They're impossible to control at these speeds.

 

Get a modern 7i and crank the loft back to 38* like they were in 74, and see what the flight looks like.  Super high, super spinny, super uncontrollable.  Why on earth would any pro or even fan want to see guys missing the green from 170 because the clubs suck?

 

The lofts aren't strong to make the club go further.  Do you really think DJ cares what number is stamped on the bottom of his 190 club?  He wants a club that goes 190 with a nice controlled, predictable flight, not a 6i that has been adjusted to go 190 with an uncontrollable trajectory.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, amace04 said:

A month ago Hikeki hit an absolute dart of a 3w from 277 to within 3 feet, then drained his eagle to win the Sony Open in a playoff.

 

Shots like that are exciting.  Yeah, he could probably layup, then go up and down for a bird and to push the playoffs to another hole, but watching shots like that is what makes golf exciting.

If you don't like those kind of moments, you just don't like fun.  Go watch bowling where nothing's changed in years.

Would it have been any less of a shot if it had been 245 yards, and only a handful of players could hit a 3-wood that distance, with accuracy?  There is nothing special about 277 yards.  It is all about comparable distance, and the shot relative to the capabilities of others.

[Titleist99]

41 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Bingo.  Golf is entertainment.  Fans want to see spectacular shots.  Lay up after lay up?  Yeah, that will sell tickets. 😂

 

What fans really want to see is more risk/reward opportunities on the course, not necessarily distance for the sake of distance.  OEM manufactures want -30 scores.  And that's why The PGA Tour has fast fairways, low risk shots and winners at -20 and above.  The PGA Tour is the distance problem.  Period.

agreed 100%......Some people just don't get it though. TV golf is entertainment and the PGATOUR knows exactly what to sell.

[gvogel]

31 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Is it me or are all of these proposed changes just jealousy and trying to fix something that isn't broke? Players are bigger better and faster and equipment is better. Every generation is that way.

When players such as Tiger Woods and Patrick Cantlay acknowledge that the ball goes too far for the existing courses, there is indeed a problem.

[Pastit]

34 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

 

This was awesome, but if that line that bryson took was within reach of a normal human, this would be a poorly designed hole.

Bryson now appears to be a normal human since that ridiculous swinging was bound to take a quick toll upon his body. Rather like that on someone else we know. 

[klebs01]

35 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Nothing will have been gained, because Distance Is.Not.A.Problem.

 

The very logic of comparing specs from 1974 to today is problematic at best.

 

With new stronger athletes, lightweight club heads and improved shaft tech, golfers are swinging faster than they ever have been.  There's a functional reason that players irons aren't as high lofted as they were in the 70s.  They're impossible to control at these speeds.

 

Get a modern 7i and crank the loft back to 38* like they were in 74, and see what the flight looks like.  Super high, super spinny, super uncontrollable.  Why on earth would any pro or even fan want to see guys missing the green from 170 because the clubs suck?

 

The lofts aren't strong to make the club go further.  Do you really think DJ cares what number is stamped on the bottom of his 190 club?  He wants a club that goes 190 with a nice controlled, predictable flight, not a 6i that has been adjusted to go 190 with an uncontrollable trajectory.

complete nonsense. 1974 clubs are controllable. We still have the 38* club club today and it’s perfectly controllable. It just has a different number stamped on the bottom. No one would start missing greens from 170 or 190 just because there is a different number in the bottom. The loft jacking is just marketing. 
 

also. Distance is absolutely a problem. Most courses around me were built pre-2000 and really pre-1970. Par 5s are driver short iron and par fours are mostly driver wedge.  No room to expand the courses with development on all sides now. Its rare to see a single digit handicap under 45 that doesn’t average 280+ Around here (not at elevation). 300 yard drives are routine and don’t get any attention. This isn’t sustainable. Even at the local level people are getting longer and 350y drives are starting to become more common. Courses can’t just be pushed out to 7400+ to keep up. Rolling the ball back is an easy solution and would deemphasize distance as the variances would be compressed. 

Edited February 24, 2022 by klebs01

[Titleist99]

34 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Nothing will have been gained, because Distance Is.Not.A.Problem.

 

The very logic of comparing specs from 1974 to today is problematic at best.

 

With new stronger athletes, lightweight club heads and improved shaft tech, golfers are swinging faster than they ever have been.  There's a functional reason that players irons aren't as high lofted as they were in the 70s.  They're impossible to control at these speeds.

 

Get a modern 7i and crank the loft back to 38* like they were in 74, and see what the flight looks like.  Super high, super spinny, super uncontrollable.  Why on earth would any pro or even fan want to see guys missing the green from 170 because the clubs suck?

 

The lofts aren't strong to make the club go further.  Do you really think DJ cares what number is stamped on the bottom of his 190 club?  He wants a club that goes 190 with a nice controlled, predictable flight, not a 6i that has been adjusted to go 190 with an uncontrollable trajectory.

Agreed, the misinformed are consumed by the number stamped on the bottom of the club....

[Pastit]

38 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Nothing will have been gained, because Distance Is.Not.A.Problem.

 

The very logic of comparing specs from 1974 to today is problematic at best.

 

With new stronger athletes, lightweight club heads and improved shaft tech, golfers are swinging faster than they ever have been.  There's a functional reason that players irons aren't as high lofted as they were in the 70s.  They're impossible to control at these speeds.

 

Get a modern 7i and crank the loft back to 38* like they were in 74, and see what the flight looks like.  Super high, super spinny, super uncontrollable.  Why on earth would any pro or even fan want to see guys missing the green from 170 because the clubs suck?

 

The lofts aren't strong to make the club go further.  Do you really think DJ cares what number is stamped on the bottom of his 190 club?  He wants a club that goes 190 with a nice controlled, predictable flight, not a 6i that has been adjusted to go 190 with an uncontrollable trajectory.

Apologies but I find this argument interesting but confusing. Why then do so many pros carry up to 4 wedges ? 

[djmohab2]

Not to mention, okay lofts have changed, but have shaft lengths? That's why it may not be as simple as you guys are making it out to be. You guys are so consumed by what number is on the sole of the club. Know what distance it goes, know how to hit it. Play accordingly. Who cares what to call them?

[amace04]

33 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Would it have been any less of a shot if it had been 245 yards, and only a handful of players could hit a 3-wood that distance, with accuracy? 

Yes

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, gvogel said:

There is nothing special about 277 yards.  It is all about comparable distance, and the shot relative to the capabilities of others.

Excuse me?

[amace04]

28 minutes ago, gvogel said:

When players such as Tiger Woods and Patrick Cantlay acknowledge that the ball goes too far for the existing courses, there is indeed a problem.

Tiger never said the ball goes "too far".  He even acknowledged he can't keep up to some of the biggest hitters anymore.  He used to be one of those "Biggest hitters"

He offered a way to curb the distance when asked about it.  A way that caters directly to his best skillset.

 

And don't put Cantlay and Woods in the same sentence again.

Edited February 24, 2022 by amace04

[PorkChopExpress]

What's the problem?
 

Scoring will be better on some courses vs others. 

They can always grow the rough and narrow fairways if they want to

 

Birdies, Eagles, Long Bombs, that's what sells.

 

[amace04]

22 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

complete nonsense. 1974 clubs are controllable. We still have the 38* club club today and it’s perfectly controllable. It just has a different number stamped on the bottom.

 

And a shorter shaft.  And a slower swing.  And a lower apex.

See where I'm going with this?

 

22 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

 

also. Distance is absolutely a problem. Most courses around me were built pre-2000 and really pre-1970. Par 5s are driver short iron and par fours are mostly driver wedge.  No room to expand the courses with development on all sides now. Its rare to see a single digit handicap under 45 that doesn’t average 280+ Around here (not at elevation).

 

Then it sounds like around you, they built crappy courses.

 

If your par 5s are "Driver short iron", then that means they're sub 430?  That assumes you drive the ball reasonably well.  If you Only drive it 240 (which would be "Above average" for an amateur), and they're still a driver/short iron out, then it's just a crap course.

Or you're making things up, which I'm more inclined to believe.

 

Don't mistake your local courses being poorly designed as a reason why distance is a problem.

 

25 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

complete nonsense. 1974 clubs are controllable. We still have the 38* club club today and it’s perfectly controllable. It just has a different number stamped on the bottom. No one would start missing greens from 170 or 190 just because there is a different number in the bottom. The loft jacking is just marketing. 
 

also. Distance is absolutely a problem. Most courses around me were built pre-2000 and really pre-1970. Par 5s are driver short iron and par fours are mostly driver wedge.  No room to expand the courses with development on all sides now. Its rare to see a single digit handicap under 45 that doesn’t average 280+ Around here (not at elevation). 300 yard drives are routine and don’t get any attention. This isn’t sustainable. Even at the local level people are getting longer and 350y drives are starting to become more common. Courses can’t just be pushed out to 7400+ to keep up. Rolling the ball back is an easy solution and would deemphasize distance as the variances would be compressed. 

300 yard drives are routine and don’t get any attention. This isn’t sustainable. Even at the local level people are getting longer and 350y drives are starting to become more common. Courses can’t just be pushed out to 7400+ to keep up. Rolling the ball back is an easy solution and would deemphasize distance as the variances would be compressed. 

 

So what?  300 yard drives have been routine for decades.  Sinc ethe Pro-V1 was introduced, driving distance on tour has largely flattened out.  A few peaks lately due to golfers going after speed.  That's not equipment, that's humans growing and focusing on distance.

 

As for your "350y drives becoming common" comment.  The % of golfers who can drive it 350 is miniscule.  Fraction of a percent.  They're the very longest in the game, yet you think they represent a "Problem" for all of golf?  Give me a break.

You're jealous.  Just say it.  

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

What's the problem?
 

Scoring will be better on some courses vs others. 

They can always grow the rough and narrow fairways if they want to

 

Birdies, Eagles, Long Bombs, that's what sells.

 

Yep, not many would pay a premium for the Golf Channel to watch their Saturday foursome play golf on TV.

[amace04]

30 minutes ago, Pastit said:

Apologies but I find this argument interesting but confusing. Why then do so many pros carry up to 4 wedges ? 

Their wedges don't have 6 iron shafts on them.  They also don't usually take full swings with all their wedges.

 

A 6 iron length 56* wedge would be crazy.  Super difficult to control, super high launch, and it would probably suck back off any green it lands on.

 

My point of contention here is people complaining about loft jacking and saying "Yeah, but your 7i is 28*, so really it's a 4i".

 

Not quite.  a 4i is longer.  A 4i has different weighting and sole design.  A 4i will launch much lower.   If you hit one of those GI 7irons with a 28* loft, they don't launch like your 4i.  They generally launch high.  I've tried it myself, using my buddy's M6 7i at 29* vs my i210 at 33*, the M6 launched higher.  They're designed to do that.

 

Even a players iron with a more traditional loft is much stronger than they were 40 years ago.  So much ball speed now, so much club speed, a 38* 7 iron would be tough to control.   A 38* 9 iron behaves differently.  

 

 

Even one-length irons are designed in a way that despite the same length shaft, they give very different flight characteristics.

Edited February 24, 2022 by amace04

[PorkChopExpress]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Yep, not many would pay a premium for the Golf Channel to watch their Saturday foursome play golf on TV.

 

Do folks pay a premium for Golf Channel?

I didn't know that folks did

[Pastit]

3 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Their wedges don't have 6 iron shafts on them.  They also don't usually take full swings with all their wedges.

 

A 6 iron length 56* wedge would be crazy.  Super difficult to control, super high launch, and it would probably suck back off any green it lands on.

 

My point of contention here is people complaining about loft jacking and saying "Yeah, but your 7i is 28*, so really it's a 4i".

 

Not quite.  a 4i is longer.  A 4i has different weighting and sole design.  A 4i will launch much lower.   If you hit one of those GI 7irons with a 28* loft, they don't launch like your 4i.  They generally launch high.

 

Even a players iron with a more traditional loft is much stronger than they were 40 years ago.  So much ball speed now, so much club speed, a 38* 7 iron would be tough to control.   A 38* 9 iron is different.  

 

 

Even one-length irons are designed in a way that despite the same length shaft, they give very different flight characteristics.

Thanks. I’m rather more interested in catching salmon ( and eating them ) but I’ll try and follow your kind explanation. Cheers

[PorkChopExpress]

The ball logic makes no sense, the longer hitters will still be longer

[gvogel]

5 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

And a shorter shaft.  And a slower swing.  And a lower apex.

See where I'm going with this?

 

 

Then it sounds like around you, they built crappy courses.

 

If your par 5s are "Driver short iron", then that means they're sub 430?  That assumes you drive the ball reasonably well.  If you Only drive it 240 (which would be "Above average" for an amateur), and they're still a driver/short iron out, then it's just a crap course.

Or you're making things up, which I'm more inclined to believe.

 

Don't mistake your local courses being poorly designed as a reason why distance is a problem.

 

300 yard drives are routine and don’t get any attention. This isn’t sustainable. Even at the local level people are getting longer and 350y drives are starting to become more common. Courses can’t just be pushed out to 7400+ to keep up. Rolling the ball back is an easy solution and would deemphasize distance as the variances would be compressed. 

 

So what?  300 yard drives have been routine for decades.  Sinc ethe Pro-V1 was introduced, driving distance on tour has largely flattened out.  A few peaks lately due to golfers going after speed.  That's not equipment, that's humans growing and focusing on distance.

 

As for your "350y drives becoming common" comment.  The % of golfers who can drive it 350 is miniscule.  Fraction of a percent.  They're the very longest in the game, yet you think they represent a "Problem" for all of golf?  Give me a break.

You're jealous.  Just say it.  

You can't make this stuff up.  The guy who thinks that nothing is wrong, and everyone is now hitting it 300 yards, just posted the graph that shows the distance increase in the last 40 years.  That looks like a 42 yard increase, or 16.4% increase over that time span.  IF you were to look backward from that graph and extrapolate what the average distance on Tour was 40 years before, in 1940, you would arrive at 215 yards.  I can assure you that Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Byron Nelson and their competitors were hitting the ball a lot longer than 215.  245 would have been less than average.

 

How can you logically defend a 16% increase in performance in a sport over 40 years, when the previous increase over 40 years was about 4.5%?  It wasn't because golfers were 16% better fed, taller or better athletes.  It was because the aerospace engineers who were laid off in California found their way into the golf equipment design departments.

[jvincent]

1 minute ago, PorkChopExpress said:

The ball logic makes no sense, the longer hitters will still be longer

 

Yes.

 

The point is that courses will not need to be made longer to address the general increase in distance which brings makes more courses playable for the top guys.

 

[gvogel]

27 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Tiger never said the ball goes "too far".  He even acknowledged he can't keep up to some of the biggest hitters anymore.  He used to be one of those "Biggest hitters"

He offered a way to curb the distance when asked about it.  A way that caters directly to his best skillset.

 

And don't put Cantlay and Woods in the same sentence again.

Patrick Cantlay and Tiger Woods are both successful professional golfers.

[amace04]

15 minutes ago, gvogel said:

You can't make this stuff up.  The guy who thinks that nothing is wrong, and everyone is now hitting it 300 yards, just posted the graph that shows the distance increase in the last 40 years.  That looks like a 42 yard increase, or 16.4% increase over that time span. 

Oh cool, so you don't know how to read.

 

15 minutes ago, gvogel said:

How can you logically defend a 16% increase in performance in a sport over 40 years, when the previous increase over 40 years was about 4.5%?  It wasn't because golfers were 16% better fed, taller or better athletes.  It was because the aerospace engineers who were laid off in California found their way into the golf equipment design departments.

I didn't.

I defended a 6 yard increase over the past 13 years as not a problem. 

 

From 1980 to 2005, there was a 34 yard increase in average distance.  That's 13.2%.

From 2005 to 2018 (what this chart shows), average driving distance increased 6 yards.  6 yards over the last 13 years.  Would you like me to do the math for you for the percentage?

 

So again, where do you see the problem?  That in the past 13 years golfers have managed to increase their average driving distance by 2% (oops, i did the math for you).

 

 

And what are you proposing the ideal situation is?  Do we go back to 1980 distances?  Nobody's stopping you from hitting drivers from the 80s.  

 

I get that you're jealous that better hitters can drive further than you, but that's hardly a reason to cry about a "Distance problem"

Edited February 24, 2022 by amace04

[amace04]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Patrick Cantlay and Tiger Woods are both successful professional golfers.

You did it again

[dugue4]

29 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

And don't put Cantlay and Woods in the same sentence again.

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Patrick Cantlay and Tiger Woods are both successful professional golfers.

You beat me to it...

[Titleist99]

9 minutes ago, gvogel said:

You can't make this stuff up.  The guy who thinks that nothing is wrong, and everyone is now hitting it 300 yards, just posted the graph that shows the distance increase in the last 40 years.  That looks like a 42 yard increase, or 16.4% increase over that time span.  IF you were to look backward from that graph and extrapolate what the average distance on Tour was 40 years before, in 1940, you would arrive at 215 yards.  I can assure you that Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Byron Nelson and their competitors were hitting the ball a lot longer than 215.  245 would have been less than average.

 

How can you logically defend a 16% increase in performance in a sport over 40 years, when the previous increase over 40 years was about 4.5%?  It wasn't because golfers were 16% better fed, taller or better athletes.  It was because the aerospace engineers who were laid off in California found their way into the golf equipment design departments.

Doesn't matter.......in tournament play, everyone plays the same course, the lowest score wins. At the end a trophy is awarded, and a champion crowned be it 6000 yards or 8000 yards. 

 

That's the object of the game of golf. Correct me if I'm wrong.

this week the PGATOUR is playing a course just over 7100 yards i do believe.....No problems

Edited February 24, 2022 by Titleist99

[amace04]

9 minutes ago, gvogel said:

 and everyone is now hitting it 300 yards

You're also completely separated from reality.

 

The average tour distance off the tee is below 300.

 

The average scratch golfer drives the ball under 260.

 

So if everyone is now hitting it 300, they must be in a unique group of golfers who are substantially better than tour golfers.   I'm not aware such a thing existed.

[Kenbone]

You can't put the genie back into the bottle. 

 

Grow the rough. Harden the greens and let 'em have at it.