distance debate

[PorkChopExpress]

Just now, Double Mocha Man said:

 

I bought a non-conforming driver once and my golfing buds at the time thought it was a criminal capitol federal offense.  Though they all wanted to try it out.

then realized they can’t hit driver either hahahaha 😊

[So_Cal]

20 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

I’m in the club of wanting those Covid golfers to go away

 

Don’t care if it’s a dying sport, golf will always be around

tennis is already dead but somehow still more popular than golf by a mile 

Yep.  Don’t care if golf shrinks.  Decent clubs/courses are way too swamped and would survive a 20% reduction in golfers.  

[PorkChopExpress]

Our tee sheet was absolutely packed for Sat

 

yet our 5-some was allowed since there were these groups out already

 

2 some

3 some

single

2 some

2 some behind us

3 some behind them

couple more singles

WTf???!!!!

[So_Cal]

8 minutes ago, golfer07840 said:

The COVID golfers have gone away here in northern NJ. Can pretty much play at anytime you want now. 

Wow.  That sounds great.  Even the dog tracks are still full out here.  Two weeks out good luck getting a time.  
 

Would love to visit Jersey.  Can we set up Somerset, Plainfield, Ridgewood or Balty?  Lots of good courses in your neighborhood.  

[BIG STU]

18 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

I bought a non-conforming driver once, just for some brief fun, and my golfing buds at the time thought it was a criminal capitol federal offense.  Though they all wanted to try it out.

I built quite a few in the golf shop days--- Mostly for guys 70 and older. I did not see a darn thing wrong with it kept them in the game. LOL I had a guy shave down a Titleist for me forgot what model. It was for kicks and giggles I never used it in a round. Back then I still had some SS and I finally caved it in. Now days I could not cave one in thin as paper and made of paper. I remember in one scramble someone came to me and said such and such had an non-conforming driver. I told him I knew because I built it for him. This was no 70 year old. I told the guy do not worry about him yeah he can hit it 300 yards but Lord only knows where he is subject to kill someone 3 blocks over in his swimming pool. 

[golfer07840]

26 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Have ya played Mcullough Emerald? 

No, south Jersey, Atlantic City courses are something I need to explore. Maybe wife and I can go down there late August. 

[golfer07840]

21 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Wow.  That sounds great.  Even the dog tracks are still full out here.  Two weeks out good luck getting a time.  
 

Would love to visit Jersey.  Can we set up Somerset, Plainfield, Ridgewood or Balty?  Lots of good courses in your neighborhood.  

I am not well connected enough to get those. 

 

However we have the #1 golf resort here (outside of Pinehurst) for the east coast. The #1 rated public course, Ballyowen is a treat to play. 

[PorkChopExpress]

5 minutes ago, golfer07840 said:

I am not well connected enough to get those. 

 

However we have the #1 golf resort here (outside of Pinehurst) for the east coast. The #1 rated public course, Ballyowen is a treat to play. 

 

Ballyowen is another place I want to play, looks amazing. 

 

When is NJ not 80/80 or 90/90 (heat / humidity)?

[golfer07840]

21 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

 

Ballyowen is another place I want to play, looks amazing. 

 

When is NJ not 80/80 or 90/90 (heat / humidity)?

 

May thru mid June. Then September thru Mid October. Basically, just avoid July and August. 

[buckeyefl]

4 hours ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Our tee sheet was absolutely packed for Sat

 

yet our 5-some was allowed since there were these groups out already

 

2 some

3 some

single

2 some

2 some behind us

3 some behind them

couple more singles

WTf???!!!!

 

 

That's just ridiculous. Horrible management. If it's busy you pair those suckers up, like it or not. My "home" course allows singles out, even on weekends, if they ask. It just blows my mind but doesn't hurt me as I don't play weekends.

Edited July 25, 2022 by buckeyefl

[roger99]

5 hours ago, cardia10 said:

We can all thank COVID for basically saving amateur golf as courses around the country were drying up prior. As we discuss rolling everything back, I immediately think make tougher. Hard to keep people interested if all they do is beat their head against a wall playing a game you can't improve at because of a ruling body that wants to shape a game for .01% of the population.

 

to turn that around, why make pro's use idiot proof equipment? What is so important about making sure manufacturers make fat profits?

 

imo the integrity of the game is more important. If you make pro's use equipment that is too forgiving, by definition you are not rewarding the guy who can hit it better and more accurately. You are levelling the playing field from a ball striking perspective, and that cannot possibly be a good thing 

[cardia10]

1 minute ago, roger99 said:

 

to turn that around, why make pro's use idiot proof equipment? What is so important about making sure manufacturers make fat profits?

 

imo the integrity of the game is more important. If you make pro's use equipment that is too forgiving, by definition you are not rewarding the guy who can hit it better and more accurately. You are levelling the playing field from a ball striking perspective, and that cannot possibly be a good thing 

My argument would be that we don't see many pros using the biggest cavity backs or the most forgiving closed face drivers. They typically play clubs that a small percentage of us can make perform. It is us mere mortals that use the most forgiving most accurate clubs possible and the average golfer still can't break 90. The USGA isn't making rules to stop us from shooting 85, they are making them for the pros to not shoot 65 which is not even their target audience or customer. They may be the most visible customer, but the masses are repeatedly overlooked when rules are implemented. 

[roger99]

42 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

My argument would be that we don't see many pros using the biggest cavity backs or the most forgiving closed face drivers. They typically play clubs that a small percentage of us can make perform. It is us mere mortals that use the most forgiving most accurate clubs possible and the average golfer still can't break 90. The USGA isn't making rules to stop us from shooting 85, they are making them for the pros to not shoot 65 which is not even their target audience or customer. They may be the most visible customer, but the masses are repeatedly overlooked when rules are implemented. 

 

i dont think the usga ever mentioned score directly. I certainly didnt.

 

Every pro uses a substantially oversized driver. Most of them 460s.    Thats the club that needs to change, really couldnt care less about irons 

[farmer]

460cc is not oversized.  Been discussed endlessly in the thread.

[cardia10]

2 hours ago, roger99 said:

 

i dont think the usga ever mentioned score directly. I certainly didnt.

 

Every pro uses a substantially oversized driver. Most of them 460s.    Thats the club that needs to change, really couldnt care less about irons 

That is the problem though. A good number of pros use a 430cc driver but again, we shouldn’t be setting rules to satisfy .01% of the golfing population. If anything, most amateurs should be playing shorter tees and I play with quite a few scratch golfers that distance isn’t their strength. If we continue to base our rules for a small percentage of golfers, more and more normal real golfers will not follow those rules. 

[Double Mocha Man]

37 minutes ago, farmer said:

460cc is not oversized.  Been discussed endlessly in the thread.

 

460cc is now normal.  Has been for awhile.

[roger99]

7 hours ago, cardia10 said:

That is the problem though. A good number of pros use a 430cc driver but again, we shouldn’t be setting rules to satisfy .01% of the golfing population. If anything, most amateurs should be playing shorter tees and I play with quite a few scratch golfers that distance isn’t their strength. If we continue to base our rules for a small percentage of golfers, more and more normal real golfers will not follow those rules. 

 

this is where I sharply disagree. Amateurs should have absolutely zero influence on what and how the pro's play. 

 

I want to know who is the best all round golfer. That becomes less likely the more forgiving you make clubs, especially the driver.

[iBanesto]

Random question: Anyone know what DeChambeau's ball speed on average was at the 2022 Open with his driver?

 

It seems like he has slowed down his swing speed due to injury. Also the PGA Tour has removed him from their statistics.

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by iBanesto

[cardia10]

4 hours ago, roger99 said:

 

this is where I sharply disagree. Amateurs should have absolutely zero influence on what and how the pro's play. 

 

I want to know who is the best all round golfer. That becomes less likely the more forgiving you make clubs, especially the driver.

I'm not comparing pro to amateur play, I'm comparing how each are treated by the ruling bodies. The .001% that are pros influence 99.9% of the decision making of the ruling bodies. Ever wonder why the LIV tour came about? The PGA Tour wouldn't listen. Same thing is happening with rules today. When the USGA don't listed to 99% of the market, that market looks elsewhere for rules or plays by their own rules, and honestly, who is harmed if these golfers aren't playing in big tournaments. I personally could care less what the pros play as I'm not a pro and don't spend much time salivating over witb pictures as I play a different game than they do. I also know that I'm the one that supports courses by paying for tee times, buying food and beer and playing in charity scrambles. Eventually, the 99% will figure out that they drive the market and the pros are just a means of advertisement for the game that they pay little to nothing to support. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by cardia10

[roger99]

3 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

I'm not comparing pro to amateur play, I'm comparing how each are treated by the ruling bodies. The .001% that are pros influence 99.9% of the decision making of the ruling bodies. Ever wonder why the LIV tour came about? The PGA Tour wouldn't listen. Same thing is happening with rules today. When the USGA don't listed to 99% of the market, that market looks elsewhere for rules or plays by their own rules, and honestly, who is harmed if these golfers aren't playing in big tournaments. I personally could care less what the pros play as I'm not a pro and don't spend much time salivating over witb pictures as I play a different game than they do. I also know that I'm the one that supports courses by paying for tee times, buying food and beer and playing in charity scrambles. Eventually, the 99% will figure out that they drive the market and the pros are just a means of advertisement for the game that they pay little to nothing to support. 

 

thats nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

I want to see a competition to identify the best golfer. Speed, skill, strategy etc etc. 

 

If you accept that modern technology makes the game easier for everyone (including pro's) then you must also logically accept that you are levelling the playing field and making it harder to identify the 'best' pro golfers. 

 

The proof is in the number of major winners in the last 20 years, and the quick turnover of world number ones. Honestly I dont think we will see another 'great' golfer, ie more than 4 majors, ever.

 

 

[clevited]

19 minutes ago, roger99 said:

 

thats nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

I want to see a competition to identify the best golfer. Speed, skill, strategy etc etc. 

 

If you accept that modern technology makes the game easier for everyone (including pro's) then you must also logically accept that you are levelling the playing field and making it harder to identify the 'best' pro golfers. 

 

The proof is in the number of major winners in the last 20 years, and the quick turnover of world number ones. Honestly I dont think we will see another 'great' golfer, ie more than 4 majors, ever.

 

 

 

I don't think that the bolded part is proof of anything.  All it is proof of is there is more parity in golf.

 

Also, we have learned via this thread and others like it that there is no consensus on what a "test" of golf is, aka what makes a player the best and thus win a tournament.  Some that try to define it focus on ball striking ability, some say spin control, some say course strategy, most say it is some of each but then what is an adequate amount of each such that people stop complaining?  You are never going to be able to test players in any kind of equal manner.  You would literally have to force each player to use the same club, perform the same shot, and hit the same distance.  Golf has always had imbalance in that regard and ultimately, the player than wins the tournament is the best that particular weekend.  They achieved the right mix of skills to beat the field and that is all that matters.  I absolutely don't believe this modern technology levels the playing field talking point.  It may be partially true but not even close to the level you and others try to make it.

[roger99]

16 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I don't think that the bolded part is proof of anything.  All it is proof of is there is more parity in golf.

 

Also, we have learned via this thread and others like it that there is no consensus on what a "test" of golf is, aka what makes a player the best and thus win a tournament.  Some that try to define it focus on ball striking ability, some say spin control, some say course strategy, most say it is some of each but then what is an adequate amount of each such that people stop complaining?  You are never going to be able to test players in any kind of equal manner.  You would literally have to force each player to use the same club, perform the same shot, and hit the same distance.  Golf has always had imbalance in that regard and ultimately, the player than wins the tournament is the best that particular weekend.  They achieved the right mix of skills to beat the field and that is all that matters.  I absolutely don't believe this modern technology levels the playing field talking point.  It may be partially true but not even close to the level you and others try to make it.

 

yes it must be a coincidence

 

edit, and yes the 'adequate amount of each' is how the game was played for almost its entire history, apart from the last 20 years.

 

No idea why you think it has to be defined more precisely than that. It wasnt then, it doesnt need to be now. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by roger99

[Simpsonia]

32 minutes ago, roger99 said:

 

thats nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

I want to see a competition to identify the best golfer. Speed, skill, strategy etc etc. 

 

If you accept that modern technology makes the game easier for everyone (including pro's) then you must also logically accept that you are levelling the playing field and making it harder to identify the 'best' pro golfers. 

 

The proof is in the number of major winners in the last 20 years, and the quick turnover of world number ones. Honestly I dont think we will see another 'great' golfer, ie more than 4 majors, ever.

 

 

 

Do you believe that all sports that have technological components or athletic related gains should be rolled back? Should F1 (or Nascar) cars be rolled back to the pre-aerodynamics days because the modern wings create so much downforce that it's just too easy to get fast lap times? Are classic race tracks like Nurbergring obsolete now because lap times are just getting too damned fast? Should tennis rackets be made to go back to heavy wood/steel  frames because the faster ball speeds from graphite rackets has changed the way tennis was played entirely from 60 years ago. Gone is the era of soft touches and controlled volleys, now it's all about power and spin. Should the basketball hoop be raised to 12 feet because players are much taller, stronger, and faster than they were 60 years ago?

 

Should we make analytics in sports illegal? One of the big reasons bomb and gouge has grown in golf isn't because of the distance, it's because analytics (shots gained) has shown that being farther, even if pitching out of the rough, is statistically the better play. Do you think that if Jack or Palmer had access to analytics that told them that the best approach was to ignore accuracy and go for distance, they would have ignored that? I think they were too far too competitive to ignore that kind of data. 

[roger99]

3 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Do you believe that all sports that have technological components or athletic related gains should be rolled back? Should F1 (or Nascar) cars be rolled back to the pre-aerodynamics days because the modern wings create so much downforce that it's just too easy to get fast lap times? Are classic race tracks like Nurbergring obsolete now because lap times are just getting too damned fast? Should tennis rackets be made to go back to heavy wood/steel  frames because the faster ball speeds from graphite rackets has changed the way tennis was played entirely from 60 years ago. Gone is the era of soft touches and controlled volleys, now it's all about power and spin. Should the basketball hoop be raised to 12 feet because players are much taller, stronger, and faster than they were 60 years ago?

 

Should we make analytics in sports illegal? One of the big reasons bomb and gouge has grown in golf isn't because of the distance, it's because analytics (shots gained) has shown that being farther, even if pitching out of the rough, is statistically the better play. Do you think that if Jack or Palmer had access to analytics that told them that the best approach was to ignore accuracy and go for distance, they would have ignored that? I think they were too far too competitive to ignore that kind of data. 

 

unless you want this debate to stretch to 500 pages I suggest we stick to golf

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, roger99 said:

 

yes it must be a coincidence

 

Suspiciously similar response to a guy that used to be in here, hmmmm.

 

It isn't a coincidence.  The cream rises to the top.  When purses grow, you see more and more actual athletes come to the sport.  You also have seen a large growth of middle class wealth and leisure time such that they can pursue the game to a degree past generations never could, availability of quality coaching, increase in number of golf courses to play and practice at, ability for players of varying speeds and skills to find equipment that best suits them instead of artificially limiting them.  Not coincidence at all.  

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, roger99 said:

 

unless you want this debate to stretch to 500 pages I suggest we stick to golf

 

You are being combative, you are a new account.  Where are you based out of?  Europe?  Were you named MilesGiles in a previous life on here?

[cardia10]

1 hour ago, roger99 said:

 

thats nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

I want to see a competition to identify the best golfer. Speed, skill, strategy etc etc. 

 

If you accept that modern technology makes the game easier for everyone (including pro's) then you must also logically accept that you are levelling the playing field and making it harder to identify the 'best' pro golfers. 

 

The proof is in the number of major winners in the last 20 years, and the quick turnover of world number ones. Honestly I dont think we will see another 'great' golfer, ie more than 4 majors, ever.

 

 

But if all players have access to the same equipment and technology, it shouldn't matter. I think we won't see a great golfer as well, but I believe it is more related to the mental game than the equipment. Coddled brats that grew up having everything handed to them rarely thrive when adversity hits. They may win one or two, but have no clue how to cope when changes need to be made. All the equipment in the world won't fix that.  If all equipment is available and equal, then where is the issue? 

Edited July 26, 2022 by cardia10

[PorkChopExpress]

I’d like to see the tennis racquets go back and court speeds increased so the serve and volley comes back

 

aka Pistol Pete

 

 

[gvogel]

14 hours ago, farmer said:

460cc is not oversized.  Been discussed endlessly in the thread.

You don't have the perspective of having played 40 years ago.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Do you believe that all sports that have technological components or athletic related gains should be rolled back? Should F1 (or Nascar) cars be rolled back to the pre-aerodynamics days because the modern wings create so much downforce that it's just too easy to get fast lap times? Are classic race tracks like Nurbergring obsolete now because lap times are just getting too damned fast? Should tennis rackets be made to go back to heavy wood/steel  frames because the faster ball speeds from graphite rackets has changed the way tennis was played entirely from 60 years ago. Gone is the era of soft touches and controlled volleys, now it's all about power and spin. Should the basketball hoop be raised to 12 feet because players are much taller, stronger, and faster than they were 60 years ago?

 

Should we make analytics in sports illegal? One of the big reasons bomb and gouge has grown in golf isn't because of the distance, it's because analytics (shots gained) has shown that being farther, even if pitching out of the rough, is statistically the better play. Do you think that if Jack or Palmer had access to analytics that told them that the best approach was to ignore accuracy and go for distance, they would have ignored that? I think they were too far too competitive to ignore that kind of data. 

Jack and Arnie had distance, but they had to keep something in reserve on a lot of holes because their drivers could hit really bad shots on occasion.  Just look at Arnie's final nine holes at Olympic in the US Open.  Also, with smaller persimmon drivers, teeing the ball very high and hitting up at 5* to take spin off the ball was not an option.  Different game; better game, because it was more difficult.

 

Why do the best climbers try to climb the most difficult mountains?  For the sport.  Golf should be darn difficult at the highest levels (not just for 70 year old me).