distance debate

[Chunkitgood]

18 hours 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. 

People seem to have a hard time understanding that it is better players who benefit most from whatever improvements in tech have occurred since say 2000.  Balls that spin either high or low depending on how hard they are hit don’t help people who cannot hit them hard, and if they do hit them so crooked that no amount of spin suppression can help them.  Incremental increases in MOI only help people who can hit it fairly close to begin with.

 

The only thing that has “helped” the normal golfer is the manipulation of COG, which really only helps them groove their poor swings.

 

The disproportionate help to elite golfers is what logic suggests should happen, what was predicted would happen, and what has happened.

 

 

[MUNIGRIT]

We need to ban the square and U grooves to protect the game from bomb n gouge..........LOL Looking back that was one of the dumber overreaction in the game.

Edited July 26, 2022 by MUNIGRIT

[farmer]

48 minutes ago, gvogel said:

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

No, you're right, I have the perspective of having played 50+ years ago.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, roger99 said:

 

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

 

It's not about golf though. I'm trying to get a baseline understanding. Honestly because I think rollbackers and non-rollbackers are just approaching this from two completely different sides, and will never see eye to eye. 

 

Non-Rollbackers care about who wins at the end of the day, who had the lowest score to par over 4 days, which racer had the lowest times and who crossed the finish line first, which tennis player won the most sets, regardless of how they did it. 

 

Rollbackers don't care about the competition or who wins at the end of the day, they care about HOW the game/sport is played. They don't care that the fastest driver wins the race, or how many sets Nadal wins by. They care that the race car took certain turns at a certain speed as designed by the now long dead course designer, or that Roche and Laver never really left the court and frequently played up to the net. They dislike that Nadal et al now often play 8 feet behind the back of the court. They hate the fact that the freakishly athletic John Isner has an obscene amount of Aces (points off of a serve without being hit by the opponent, for you non tennis people). 

 

At the end of the day, it's about control, or maybe the the lack of control that they fear. 

[PorkChopExpress]

8 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It's not about golf though. I'm trying to get a baseline understanding. Honestly because I think rollbackers and non-rollbackers are just approaching this from two completely different sides, and will never see eye to eye. 

 

Non-Rollbackers care about who wins at the end of the day, who had the lowest score to par over 4 days, which racer had the lowest times and who crossed the finish line first, which tennis player won the most sets, regardless of how they did it. 

 

Rollbackers don't care about the competition or who wins at the end of the day, they care about HOW the game/sport is played. They don't care that the fastest driver wins the race, or how many sets Nadal wins by. They care that the race car took certain turns at a certain speed as designed by the now long dead course designer, or that Roche and Laver never really left the court and frequently played up to the net. They dislike that Nadal et al now often play 8 feet behind the back of the court. They hate the fact that the freakishly athletic John Isner has an obscene amount of Aces (points off of a serve without being hit by the opponent, for you non tennis people). 

 

At the end of the day, it's about control, or maybe the the lack of control that they fear. 

 

Is that like the NextGen Nascar that's screwing things up?

[clevited]

37 minutes ago, Chunkitgood said:

People seem to have a hard time understanding that it is better players who benefit most from whatever improvements in tech have occurred since say 2000.  Balls that spin either high or low depending on how hard they are hit don’t help people who cannot hit them hard, and if they do hit them so crooked that no amount of spin suppression can help them.  Incremental increases in MOI only help people who can hit it fairly close to begin with.

 

The only thing that has “helped” the normal golfer is the manipulation of COG, which really only helps them groove their poor swings.

 

The disproportionate help to elite golfers is what logic suggests should happen, what was predicted would happen, and what has happened.

 

 

 

I think most in here understand that, well at least those that frequent these types of threads, the arguement is with regard to the often talking point of the modern pro's not being as good as the old pros, or that terrible pros are winning and shouldn't be because of equipment.  That is all completely untrue in my and many opinion.  Those that bring up these things are often very hyperbolic about it and that just makes me and others (likely), take their opinions much less seriously.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It's not about golf though. I'm trying to get a baseline understanding. Honestly because I think rollbackers and non-rollbackers are just approaching this from two completely different sides, and will never see eye to eye. 

 

Non-Rollbackers care about who wins at the end of the day, who had the lowest score to par over 4 days, which racer had the lowest times and who crossed the finish line first, which tennis player won the most sets, regardless of how they did it. 

 

Rollbackers don't care about the competition or who wins at the end of the day, they care about HOW the game/sport is played. They don't care that the fastest driver wins the race, or how many sets Nadal wins by. They care that the race car took certain turns at a certain speed as designed by the now long dead course designer, or that Roche and Laver never really left the court and frequently played up to the net. They dislike that Nadal et al now often play 8 feet behind the back of the court. They hate the fact that the freakishly athletic John Isner has an obscene amount of Aces (points off of a serve without being hit by the opponent, for you non tennis people). 

 

At the end of the day, it's about control, or maybe the the lack of control that they fear. 

We'll never know how a ball and club head roll back would work out, unless it is tried selectively.

 

Personally, I don't care how the game is played post roll back, who benefits and who doesn't, and which dead course designers are lauded or not.  I just want the game to continue to fit the thousands of golf courses already in existence.  Please don't ascribe these other "cares" to me.

 

Also, it might be nice if the incentive to swing 110% on all tee shots was reduced, so that pro golfers' longevity would increase.

[golfer07840]

3 hours 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. 

Please, stop. You're making my head hurt from all the logic and common sense. 

 

😎

[roger99]

2 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

People seem to have a hard time understanding that it is better players who benefit most from whatever improvements in tech have occurred since say 2000.  Balls that spin either high or low depending on how hard they are hit don’t help people who cannot hit them hard, and if they do hit them so crooked that no amount of spin suppression can help them.  Incremental increases in MOI only help people who can hit it fairly close to begin with.

 

The only thing that has “helped” the normal golfer is the manipulation of COG, which really only helps them groove their poor swings.

 

The disproportionate help to elite golfers is what logic suggests should happen, what was predicted would happen, and what has happened.

 

 

I think there is a lot of truth to this. I’ve always thought a 90 shooter couldn’t possibly hit it well enough to distinguish one ball or club from another. Yeah they’ll benefit from more clubhead size but that really is about it 

[golfer07840]

3 hours ago, roger99 said:

 

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

This debate will hit 500 pages... The only way it doesn't, is if it gets locked.  

 

So please, share your thoughts with the rest of the class. 

[roger99]

35 minutes ago, gvogel said:

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

[roger99]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It's not about golf though. I'm trying to get a baseline understanding. Honestly because I think rollbackers and non-rollbackers are just approaching this from two completely different sides, and will never see eye to eye. 

 

Non-Rollbackers care about who wins at the end of the day, who had the lowest score to par over 4 days, which racer had the lowest times and who crossed the finish line first, which tennis player won the most sets, regardless of how they did it. 

 

Rollbackers don't care about the competition or who wins at the end of the day, they care about HOW the game/sport is played. They don't care that the fastest driver wins the race, or how many sets Nadal wins by. They care that the race car took certain turns at a certain speed as designed by the now long dead course designer, or that Roche and Laver never really left the court and frequently played up to the net. They dislike that Nadal et al now often play 8 feet behind the back of the court. They hate the fact that the freakishly athletic John Isner has an obscene amount of Aces (points off of a serve without being hit by the opponent, for you non tennis people). 

 

At the end of the day, it's about control, or maybe the the lack of control that they fear. 

don’t know who you are quoting with stuff like this. 

[golfer07840]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

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

 

[roger99]

2 minutes ago, golfer07840 said:

This debate will hit 500 pages... The only way it doesn't, is if it gets locked.  

 

So please, share your thoughts with the rest of the class. 

When tennis allowed rackets to evolve, they changed the ball and have done so repeatedly since, to preserve elements of the game that we’re getting lost.

 

golf did the opposite, allowed ball technology to evolve along with the clubs, leading to all the problems described 

[golfer07840]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

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).

 

Good lord, you're actually going to sit there and tell us that golf is easy for the Pros? 

 

I... I just can't... Not today..

 

 

[ChipStrokes]

7 minutes ago, golfer07840 said:

 

Good lord, you're actually going to sit there and tell us that golf is easy for the Pros? 

 

I... I just can't... Not today..

 

 

obviously it’s too easy. four guys on tour were under par for all 4 majors this year. 

 

four!!!

 

that’s too many!!

 

we need to go to 10,000 yard courses with bears guarding the greens and a foam ball that they have to hit with a shoehorn. 

[MUNIGRIT]

We all saw what a +3 does on a pro course last week with Marty. PGA pros are good.

[beckk10]

The golf ball is broken for sure. It hardly curves, flies really high an far with minimal spin, still great around the greens. 

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, beckk10 said:

The golf ball is broken for sure. It hardly curves, flies really high an far with minimal spin, still great around the greens. 

 

I can get it to curve plenty thank you very much.  

[beckk10]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I can get it to curve plenty thank you very much.  

🤣

[roger99]

4 hours ago, clevited said:

 

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.  

this argument falls apart when you consider other, far more popular and better resourced sports STILL produce extreme outliers. Bolt, Kipchoge, Messi, Ronaldo plus three of the greatest tennis players ever, all at the same time.

 

If it was talent pool, coaching, fitness, money etc.. this wouldn’t have happened..

 

Time to face facts. In golf, the equaliser is the equipment. 12 years and counting since we have had a dominant player 

[roger99]

21 minutes ago, beckk10 said:

The golf ball is broken for sure. It hardly curves, flies really high an far with minimal spin, still great around the greens. 

tennis got it right. Adapted the ball to balance skill sets and the result was three phenomenal players with completely different games and the greatest era of mens tennis ever 

[buckeyefl]

2 hours ago, farmer said:

No, you're right, I have the perspective of having played 50+ years ago.

Too easy

[buckeyefl]

Just now, roger99 said:

tennis got it right. Adapted the ball to balance skill sets and the result was three phenomenal players with completely different games and the greatest era of mens tennis ever 

Tell us about all of the tennis courts that change size.

[buckeyefl]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

We'll never know how a ball and club head roll back would work out, unless it is tried selectively.

 

Personally, I don't care how the game is played post roll back, who benefits and who doesn't, and which dead course designers are lauded or not.  I just want the game to continue to fit the thousands of golf courses already in existence.  Please don't ascribe these other "cares" to me.

 

Also, it might be nice if the incentive to swing 110% on all tee shots was reduced, so that pro golfers' longevity would increase.

Oh you care greatly. Hundreds of your posts verify you care.

 

The game fits into all courses now, yesterday and every day in the future. "Hit ball into hole with as few stroke as possible." Yep its alive and well with a bright future.

 

Longevity? Oh please.

[buckeyefl]

8 minutes ago, roger99 said:

this argument falls apart when you consider other, far more popular and better resourced sports STILL produce extreme outliers. Bolt, Kipchoge, Messi, Ronaldo plus three of the greatest tennis players ever, all at the same time.

 

If it was talent pool, coaching, fitness, money etc.. this wouldn’t have happened..

 

Time to face facts. In golf, the equaliser is the equipment. 12 years and counting since we have had a dominant player 

 

No that would be skill. Nice try though.

 

BTW what evil, demon spawn new age equipment are you playing these days?

[gvogel]

8 minutes ago, buckeyefl said:

Oh you care greatly. Hundreds of your posts verify you care.

 

The game fits into all courses now, yesterday and every day in the future. "Hit ball into hole with as few stroke as possible." Yep its alive and well with a bright future.

 

Longevity? Oh please.

IF you think that 4 driveable par 4's at the Home of Golf is your idea of modern golf, we have a serious difference of opinion.

 

Maybe in your world, a golf course should consist of 18 par 3 holes.

[Simpsonia]

3 minutes ago, gvogel said:

IF you think that 4 driveable par 4's at the Home of Golf is your idea of modern golf, we have a serious difference of opinion.

 

Maybe in your world, a golf course should consist of 18 par 3 holes.

 

Par is an artificial construct. At the end of the day the point is to get through 18 holes with the least amount of strokes. Just like the point in auto racing is to get around the track in the fastest time, not to do it through artificial constructs. Do you think that F1 racers should have a minimum lap time cap that they shouldn't be allowed to go under (ie par)? 

[ChipStrokes]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

IF you think that 4 driveable par 4's at the Home of Golf is your idea of modern golf, we have a serious difference of opinion.

 

Maybe in your world, a golf course should consist of 18 par 3 holes.

it’s a 400 year old field.  why should technological progress be halted for its sake?

 

there are buildings in NYC that have been standing since the 1700s. no one complains that they have wifi though.  

 

 

[Pastit]

5 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Par is an artificial construct. At the end of the day the point is to get through 18 holes with the least amount of strokes. Just like the point in auto racing is to get around the track in the fastest time, not to do it through artificial constructs. Do you think that F1 racers should have a minimum lap time cap that they shouldn't be allowed to go under (ie par)? 

Effectively, I think there was a lap time constriction in F1, memory fails me but it may have been in the V8 3.5 ltr formula when the lap times became dangerous.

 

I assume you know that the “ formula “ is changeable ? Lower engine capacity turbo era. Also, ground-effect was banned, Nicki Laura’s “ reverse hovercraft “ design, Tyrell 6-wheel cars and so on. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Pastit