distance debate

[TLUBulldogGolf]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

I have stated many times in these threads that I think it i fine to want to freeze things as they are and that has pretty well been the case equipment wise for 20 years now.  I am also fine with being proactive with changes in technology such that the freeze doesn't start to thaw if you know what I mean.  I have already mentioned specific things like overalll club weight, shaft weight, hollow headed irons, etc.  They missed the boat on those too and could have "frozen" things by nipping those out of existence.

There are limits on everything but where is distance trending? And is it sustainable?

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I don’t think the v groove change was ever a pro/high level only rule change. They don’t have to declare everything else non-conforming. The ball change probably ends up going through for everyone but I don’t see why potential MLR for clubs has to.

The groove rule becomes part of the RoG for all players in 2024 I think.  Major OEMs haven't made a non-conforming wedge or set of irons in over ten years.  The groove restrictions have been in use for high level amateur and pro golf since inception.

 

Speculation by some folks is that any bifurcation via MLRs will end up being like the groove rule.  You can play non-conforming equipment, but it won't be new because the OEMs won't want to bifurcate their production lines.  I don't think it will happen quite that fast this time, but over a longer period of time it will.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

23 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The groove rule becomes part of the RoG for all players in 2024 I think.  Major OEMs haven't made a non-conforming wedge or set of irons in over ten years.  The groove restrictions have been in use for high level amateur and pro golf since inception.

 

Speculation by some folks is that any bifurcation via MLRs will end up being like the groove rule.  You can play non-conforming equipment, but it won't be new because the OEMs won't want to bifurcate their production lines.  I don't think it will happen quite that fast this time, but over a longer period of time it will.

I get it but they required anything manufactured after 1/1/10 to conform. It doesn’t sound like they want to go that route this time, I’m sure OEMs are in the process of pushing back on the latest ideas floated. It would seem to be in the OEMs interest for it to apply to everyone if it has to happen, otherwise why would anyone switch to a slower club if their current tech wasn’t ruled non-conforming.

[clevited]

11 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

There are limits on everything but where is distance trending? And is it sustainable?

 

I have addressed this multiple times before in this thread.  The average will come up, but if you have noticed, 20 years of an upper limit average that is right around 315 yards.  This makes me strongly think there is a limit to how much distance is actually useful on the tour.  Notice the Korn Ferry Tour averages more, that is due to course mix I believe.  Cam Champ for example, averaged 340 on KF, now is 20 yards below.  Many guys have pegged that average limit over the years, all can go well beyond that if they chose but the fact is, they dial it back more often than people believe or use less than driver.  

 

Pull back distance and more people will peg their distance max on the course.  You won't see much change for a significant portion of the players, and that average will creep back up.  You will see increases in injuries because distance will be even more important.  All stuff I have said before.  These are some of my predictions that I feel strongly will happen.

 

The RBs will either roll back distance a meaningless amount and not fix their perceived problem, or they will do it the amount needed and cause all kinds of collateral damage in the process. That is what I really think will happen and why I am all for a freeze like we largely already have and then just being much more proactive going forward. Put all these resources into making the game less stuffy and more appealing.  To me that would be an actual wise use of resources. Not this crusade against distance. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by clevited

[Nard_S]

4 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

and it might have a 5-8% reduction in distance? But that kind of change is not going to stop bomb and gouge. If you stop and think about it critically at all, to fully stop bomb and gouge and make all these old courses' fairway features remain in play (as has been stated is one of the main goals of all of this), or make players hit long irons to "make a test of golf", you really need a 20%+ distance rollback. 

Run the game theory on 20% rollback. It's ridiculous and makes zero sense. Where do people come up with that? 

 

If you lose just one club off tee shot, it's two more clubs into green on a par 4. That scenario is nowhere near 20%. It's more like 5%. If dispersion was increased 5% on the tour via ball spec or MOI or COR that would be a bunch too. The great news is amateurs need not to be concerned at all.

 

The RB's care about the tech tail wagging the game dog. Better late than never, I guess but draconian distance rollbacks are really not needed to add back a level of ''chaos'' that has gone missing on big boy tour.

[ThinkingPlus]

48 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Run the game theory on 20% rollback. It's ridiculous and makes zero sense. Where do people come up with that? 

 

If you lose just one club off tee shot, it's two more clubs into green on a par 4. That scenario is nowhere near 20%. It's more like 5%. If dispersion was increased 5% on the tour via ball spec or MOI or COR that would be a bunch too. The great news is amateurs need not to be concerned at all.

 

The RB's care about the tech tail wagging the game dog. Better late than never, I guess but draconian distance rollbacks are really not needed to add back a level of ''chaos'' that has gone missing on big boy tour.

The 20% number originally came from Jack Nicklaus.  Oh, and everybody has to play under the new ball spec.  Amateurs get to lose some distance just like the pros.

[Soloman1]

 

Don’t worry, we all eventually lose that 20% distance without any equipment rule changes since time only goes one direction.

[mosesgolf]

2 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

Don’t worry, we all eventually lose that 20% distance without any equipment rule changes since time only goes one direction.

Wiser words were never spoken.  😂 

I've been feeling a bit of this every year for awhile now.

[Simpsonia]

10 hours ago, Nard_S said:

Run the game theory on 20% rollback. It's ridiculous and makes zero sense. Where do people come up with that? 

 

If you lose just one club off tee shot, it's two more clubs into green on a par 4. That scenario is nowhere near 20%. It's more like 5%. If dispersion was increased 5% on the tour via ball spec or MOI or COR that would be a bunch too. The great news is amateurs need not to be concerned at all.

 

The RB's care about the tech tail wagging the game dog. Better late than never, I guess but draconian distance rollbacks are really not needed to add back a level of ''chaos'' that has gone missing on big boy tour.

 

Well you're new to the thread so I guess you haven't really been reading up on what your fellow rollbackers have been advocating for. The most common arguments is that they want to see 4-5 irons on approach shots after the tee, and they want to make sure those historical bunkers in the 260-280yd range remain in play even for the likes of Rory and co. To do that would require a 20% rollback. 5% might make the longer guys have to hit a PW or 9-iron instead of a gap wedge in on approach, and those historical fairway bunkers will still be safely bombed over. 

 

As for dispersion, it's unlikely to change absent a [significant] rollback to the size of the face. MOI can help decrease dispersion, but most of the tour guys play low MOI heads anyways to bring down spin, so any MOI rollbacks would almost certainly really only affect amateurs who rely on high MOI for forgiveness. Edit: even with a significant face size rollback, given the consistency of pros, it would hit Ams way harder too. Just look at how consistent the pros are with their 3W off the tee for similar consistency with much smaller faces. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Simpsonia

[Nard_S]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The 20% number originally came from Jack Nicklaus.  Oh, and everybody has to play under the new ball spec.  Amateurs get to lose some distance just like the pros.

That's not what the RB's are suggesting at all. They never have yet, everybody's screaming the sky is falling.

 

And no amateurs don't have to play by that. They explicitly said as much, if anything they will open standards for enthusiasts. 

 

5% adds two clubs into a green on a par 4. Run the math. Most holes I play require a 220 tee shot, 5% is 11 yards that's a club, then if old approach club is 150, it's now a 142 yards, so 19 yards net added to hole. That's 2 clubs.

 

A PGA  par 4 is 475. Driver(300) /7i (175). 5% is driver 285 leaving 195 approach, with 5% less that's a 5i for them, so two clubs too. 

 

20% is chicken little rhetorical garbage.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Nard_S said:

That's not what the RB's are suggesting at all. They never have yet, everybody's screaming the sky is falling.

 

And no amateurs don't have to play by that. They explicitly said as much, if anything they will open standards for enthusiasts. 

 

5% adds two clubs into a green on a par 4. Run the math. Most holes I play require a 220 tee shot, 5% is 11 yards that's a club, then if old approach club is 150, it's now a 142 yards, so 19 yards net added to hole. That's 2 clubs.

 

A PGA  par 4 is 475. Driver(300) /7i (175). 5% is driver 285 leaving 195 approach, with 5% less that's a 5i for them, so two clubs too. 

 

20% is chicken little rhetorical garbage.

 

Then the problem is not addressed at all and they might as well do nothing.

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Then the problem is not addressed at all and they might as well do nothing.

If a PGA has to use a 5i into a decent length par 4, that's pretty much how the game was played before big Ti & Pro V. The issue is then resolved.

[Nard_S]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

As for dispersion

You don't mention the ball at all which where the lack of dispersion starts. The R&B's have though and they specifically point out aerodynamic drag and initial spin and test conditions for those. They also mention COR & MOI, mind all of these for tournament play, not amateur, but they understand it's not just distance  it's more  the dispersion or lack of it, which is what I posted here about long ago.

[clevited]

39 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

If a PGA has to use a 5i into a decent length par 4, that's pretty much how the game was played before big Ti & Pro V. The issue is then resolved.

 

Who does?  Who are we talking about?  You saying you just want to see the average tour player have to hit (insert x long iron here) or are you still going to complain when Rory and the likes hit pretty much the same thing into everything as they did before, and when you see some of the average guys chase speed since it will be even more desirable and pretty much nothing is changed after some time passes?

Edited July 6, 2022 by clevited

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

Who does? 

Well the RB's have been quite transparent about this whole thing. There's 3 years of documentation on it, try looking there.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Nard_S said:

Well the RB's have been quite transparent about this whole thing. There's 3 years of documentation on it, try looking there.

 

I am not going to pour through more stupid USGA drivel, you posted that, you answer please.

[Nard_S]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

 

I am not going to pour through more stupid USGA drivel, you posted that, you answer please.

See that is problem. Facts are drivel because they don't fit or bolster the  outrage on the topic. 

 

So 21st century.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

See that is problem. Facts are drivel because they don't fit or bolster the  outrage on the topic. 

 

So 21st century.

 

They are drivel because of their track record at screwing things up, and for yapping and doing nothing for 20+ years.  It is objectively drivel.

 

You still haven't answered my question, WHO, are you referring to when talking about hitting a 5i into a par 4?

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

They are drivel because of their track record at screwing things up, and for yapping and doing nothing for 20+ years.  It is objectively drivel.

 

You still haven't answered my question, WHO, are you referring to when talking about hitting a 5i into a par 4?

Try reading the sentence, never mind what the RB's have been publishing on this for three years. 

[clevited]

Just now, Nard_S said:

Try reading the sentence, never mind what the RB's have been publishing on this for three years. 

 

Please answer my question.  I am discussing this with you, not the USGA and I am not going to pour through pages of reports to find the one thing you won't answer.  Who is it that is hitting the 5 iron? If you don't answer the question, you are just as dishonest, angry and disingenuous as miles was.

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Please answer my question.  I am discussing this with you, not the USGA and I am not going to pour through pages of reports to find the one thing you won't answer.  Who is it that is hitting the 5 iron? If you don't answer the question, you are just as dishonest, angry and disingenuous as miles was.

The wording is easily comprehensible. Before Pro V and 460 Ti most decent length par 4's on the tour required a #5i to hit into. Most PGA guys were using a 5i for a 190 shot at that time. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Are you going to play gotchya now, with, "where's the data" . I don't have any, it's an observation and anybody who was there gets the point. You want "facts" read the RB's on this topic or is that too much for you?

 

 

 

[MattC555]

1 hour ago, Nard_S said:

That's not what the RB's are suggesting at all. They never have yet, everybody's screaming the sky is falling.

 

And no amateurs don't have to play by that. They explicitly said as much, if anything they will open standards for enthusiasts. 

 

5% adds two clubs into a green on a par 4. Run the math. Most holes I play require a 220 tee shot, 5% is 11 yards that's a club, then if old approach club is 150, it's now a 142 yards, so 19 yards net added to hole. That's 2 clubs.

 

A PGA  par 4 is 475. Driver(300) /7i (175). 5% is driver 285 leaving 195 approach, with 5% less that's a 5i for them, so two clubs too. 

 

20% is chicken little rhetorical garbage.

 That example is dated though.  The big bombers aren't hitting 300 yards today.  They are 325 yards and higher. 

 

Here are Rory's numbers:

 

 

So, by your logic he'd be driver, PW.  5% less driver(310 yards) leaves 165 yards which is 8i(5% less 175 yards).  And that logic only works if you're limiting distance with the ball.  If they just roll back the driver you'll still have him hitting 9 iron.  Big whoop.  And that assumes he just doesn't swing harder with driver.  He hit 190mph ball speed pretty easily in a Taylormade video yielding a carry of over 346 yards(5% less being 328 yards).  The drop would have to be at least 10%, probably more, and it has to hit all clubs - meaning a ball change.  

 

[clevited]

Just now, Nard_S said:

The wording is easily comprehensible. Before Pro V and 460 Ti most decent length par 4's on the tour required a #5i to hit into. Most PGA guys were using a 5i for a 190 shot at that time. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Are you going to play gotchya now, with, "where's the data" . I don't have any, it's an observation and anybody who was there gets the point. You want "facts" read the RB's on this topic or is that too much for you?

 

 

 

 

What wording?  I am not reading their reports again.  I asked you to identify who you are referring to when you talk about someone hitting a 5i now such that you will be satisfied.

 

So you sort of answered it now.   Is it "most PGA guys"  who you are talking about?  So you are fine with the longest still playing the game just like today?  Will you complain about their lack of skill when they win?  How does this accomplish what the ruling bodies want?  They are only going to bring "skill" back to the game for a portion of elite players, meanwhile the longest can just peg it more, and the rest can Bryson their way to longer distances such that nothing was actually resolved?

 

Those are just some questions for you to ask yourself.  None of what the USGA proposes, or what you propose brings back anything like the game you desire.  If it does, then you don't represent most of who complain about distance and you have a much lower standard of what does it for you.

 

The gulf in athletic capability is so incredibly large that you need 15-20% just to get the longest guys to be under 330 yards total in normal flat conditions.  Then you get the majority of what you want on the tour to occur, and it might be rare enough for the effective life of the game to have anyone able to bomb and gouge as much as it occurs today.  

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 That example is dated though.  The big bombers aren't hitting 300 yards today.  They are 325 yards and higher. 

 

Here are Rory's numbers:

 

 

So, by your logic he'd be driver, PW.  5% less driver(310 yards) leaves 165 yards which is 8i(5% less 175 yards).  And that logic only works if you're limiting distance with the ball.  If they just roll back the driver you'll still have him hitting 9 iron.  Big whoop.  And that assumes he just doesn't swing harder with driver.  He hit 190mph ball speed pretty easily in a Taylormade video yielding a carry of over 346 yards(5% less being 328 yards).  The drop would have to be at least 10%, probably more, and it has to hit all clubs - meaning a ball change.  

 

 

Well, then you have this which is the future inevitability of the game especially if the roll backs occur.  Athletes like him with the rest of their game in check (including the mental side of things) will be making guys like Nard mad forever.  For those that don't know, he is an extremely good golfer and today, going pro is tough but roll things back and he will have a greater advantage as he will be able to flex his distance much more often.  Right now he has to hit less than driver a lot when he plays due to it not being the smart play (even though he is incredibly accurate at 210+ ball speed with a gamer driver).  

 

Yes I am a long drive fan, but I have seen the lines blurring between long drive pro guys and pga pro guys for years. 

 

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, Nard_S said:

You don't mention the ball at all which where the lack of dispersion starts. The R&B's have though and they specifically point out aerodynamic drag and initial spin and test conditions for those. They also mention COR & MOI, mind all of these for tournament play, not amateur, but they understand it's not just distance  it's more  the dispersion or lack of it, which is what I posted here about long ago.

 

The USGA has said nothing at all about dispersion, to my knowledge. Please provide a source if they have said as much. The ball does play some into dispersion, but what is your proposed alternative, go back to ultra high-spin balatas? That's ridiculous, and is not a fair solution either. As we see on tour between the guys who play the V1X vs the V1 (or TP5 vs TP5X), some players are high spin, some a low spin. Amping up the spin on balls by a huge margin is only going to screw over the already high spin players comparatively to the lower spin players. It's basically making only a certain type of swing viable at the highest levels of the game, which to me is a complete non-starter. 

[Nard_S]

22 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

he USGA has said nothing at all about dispersion, to my knowledge. Please provide a source if they have said as much. The ball does play some into dispersion, but what is your proposed alternative, go back to ultra high-spin balatas?

Go read their last press release. basic proposal right now would make Pro V illegal with new atandard of test. Also  current #3W would have too much MOI. I'm not your librarian.

[joshrad_golf]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:54 AM, freddi22cl said:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tiger-woods-distance-debate-add-spin-to-golf-ball

 

2000- one player averaged over 300 yds , J Daly

2022- so far : 98 with 4 averaging 320. Driver/wedge show every week 

 

 

Golf’s governing bodies have been studying increases in distance for years and, in February 2021, laid the groundwork for potential rule changes.

“We’re entering into the solution phase from an equipment-standards standpoint,” Thomas Pagel, the USGA’s senior managing director of governance, said in a statement. “This is the first step in re-engaging the manufacturing community in looking at possible solutions for the long-term distance challenges that the game is facing.”

 

 

.............

 

thoughts? 

 

seems Woods suggests adding spin to the ball as a solution. 

 

As a player on PGA TOUR Latin America, we've played plenty of difficult golf courses that are very short courses, by today's standards. There's no need to limit the golf ball or the equipment. Let those companies do what they do best and innovate. It's fun to hit the ball a really long way. You can make golf courses tougher by their design. You can weed out the worse players by adjusting the playing conditions. Bring the fairways in, grow the rough up, and make the greens firmer. Give me greens with tons of contour, and make them firm. Guys will struggle even when they're hitting wedge out of the rough. If you can't spin it out of the rough, it's going to be hard keeping it on a firm shelf over a bunker, even with a wedge in your hand. When you increase the length of the course, you hurt the guys that can't hit it far, and you give more advantage to the guys who hit it a mile. By keeping a course short and not limiting technology, you can keep guys like Corey Pavin and Lee Trevino, who are great golfers but don't hit it a long way, competitive while still making it a good challenge for all. Taper the rough length by making it thicker the closer you get to the green. Keep the fairways a consistent, narrow width, but make the rough thicker from 100 yards than from 150. It'll make players think about whether they want to push it up there or not. 

[Nard_S]

1 hour ago, MattC555 said:

 That example is dated though.  The big bombers aren't hitting 300 yards today.  They are 325 yards and higher. 

 

Here are Rory's numbers:

 

 

So, by your logic he'd be driver, PW.  5% less driver(310 yards) leaves 165 yards which is 8i(5% less 175 yards).  And that logic only works if you're limiting distance with the ball.  If they just roll back the driver you'll still have him hitting 9 iron.  Big whoop.  And that assumes he just doesn't swing harder with driver.  He hit 190mph ball speed pretty easily in a Taylormade video yielding a carry of over 346 yards(5% less being 328 yards).  The drop would have to be at least 10%, probably more, and it has to hit all clubs - meaning a ball change.  

 

Tour average is closer to 300 than 325. Also it's not just distance, it's the dispersion. Bryson cannot win now because to go 200 mph ball speed, he can't keep it straight. If they limit MOI or raise initial ball spin or increase aerodynamic drag, all things they propose., the bombers are going wronger as they go longer. More OB's more chances for bogies, more fear.

[Simpsonia]

12 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Go read their last press release. basic proposal right now would make Pro V illegal with new atandard of test. Also  current #3W would have too much MOI. I'm not your librarian.

 

I assume you mean the proposal discussed here? https://www.golfdigest.com/story/new-distance-rollback-proposals-get-more-aggressive

 

 

Nothing in the below at all discusses dispersion at all. It discusses that current balls would be non-conforming, but only due to initial ball speed tests and nothing at all to do with dispersion.

 

You were the one who asserted that the USGA was concerned about dispersion, it's on you to provide a source. Otherwise I'll just go ahead and assert that the USGA plans to require little tiny rocket engines in the back of drivers to boost driver speed for amateurs. Oh you want a source on that? What am I your librarian? Find it yourself. 

 

Quote

Previously, one proposed idea revolved around the procedure the USGA uses to test golf balls for maximum distance. The original thought or area of interest involved potentially raising the test swing speed for the Overall Distance Standard from the current 120 miles per hour to at least 125. The June 8 announcement now proposes studying a test speed “between 125 and 127 mph and will include studies of the effects of these test speeds on the launch conditions and aerodynamics of the golf ball.” At the maximum, that speed would be more than 12 mph faster than the current average clubhead speed on the PGA Tour but only a little more than two mph faster than the two current fastest swings on tour, Cameron Champ (124.76) and Branden Hagy (124.41).

As the USGA’s John Spitzer previously indicated when the speed being considered was at least 125 mph, nearly all of the balls played on tour would be non-conforming under the new standard, and of course many of those balls are also among the most purchased balls on the market.

 

 

 

 

[MattC555]

A few pages back people in favor of rolling back distance were stating that 300 yard CARRY was not a big hit anymore.  Now 300 total is the standard bearer for distance reduction? 

 

As an FYI for all those trying to keep track - the USGA proposals from March are interested in adopting higher speed ball testing for everyone and and limiting MOI for elite golfers:

 

"This AoI communication serves to narrow the focus of the research topics presented in the 1
February 2021 AoI. Specifically, we are exploring an increase in the clubhead speed used within the
Overall Distance Standard and, in the context of potential Model Local Rules, we are investigating
the reduction of the spring-like effect and the MOI limit for drivers.
The research topics discussed in this AoI communication are strictly areas of interest. No decisions
have been made about possible solutions and no proposals are being made at this time. Any
proposals for Rule changes that might result from this research will be communicated in accordance
with the Equipment Rulemaking Procedures.
Comments regarding this Area of Interest communication are due by 2 September 2022."

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by MattC555