distance debate

[ChipStrokes]

21 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Well, this will be fun.

 

My former playing partner, Old Tom, combined the first two holes and last two holes to come up with the present 18 hole course, because, get this: THEY WERE PAR 3's!

 

He didn't feel that they were proper golf holes, as the rest of the holes were two or three shotters, except for a couple of good ones out on the Loop.  So, out of a few short holes, Old Tom created the present 1st and 18th. 

 

The course that he finally improved, was played both counter-clockwise and clockwise for generations, each appreciating the challenge and the sport of playing over those links.  Now we have gotten to the point where many (but not you and Titleist) are coming to appreciate that the Old Course has lost some of the challenge and sport that previous eras came to appreciate.  Why?  Because former aerospace engineers were able to improve the ball and the driver immeasurable over the past 20 years.  Is this sustainable for the game?  The R&A and the USGA think not - and I agree.  I am glad to be on their side of the issue.

who actually cares, though?

 

why does time have to stand still in golf?  nowhere else in sports or in the world do we ask for things to go backwards. 

 

when the mound height was lowered, no one cried to the ghost of abner doubleday. same with james nasmith when the 3-point line was painted on the court. 

 

how about this brand of bifurcation:

 

certain courses around the world will be designated as “legacy courses” and will be left alone, frozen at their current distances, and can only be played with persimmon drivers and wound balls. everyone who wants a rollback is more than welcome to go play them to their hearts’ content

 

the rest will be left alone, for both pros and amateurs.  

[TLUBulldogGolf]

I dislike the outlier argument. Before Tiger came along they were saying there was too much talent to be dominant. There is a huge randomness and luck factor in golf and it takes a lot to rise to a level where you can overcome that consistently. And no one has been good enough to rise to that level. Ball striking is not far less important, the data does not back that up. I’d make the argument that driving now has an outsized role in the game but you still have to hit it well to win. Tournament winners are generally hitting it among the best tee to green and probably making a decent amount of putts, there are few crazy heater weeks where tournaments are won off short game. Cam Smith’s putting at The Open comes to mind but he was still hitting it pretty well.

 

If the modern short game is so much more difficult (I agree it’s more difficult in some respects) that seems like an area where you could separate yourself more.

 

Bottom line is we now know the best strategy is to smash it most of the time, so let’s dial that back some, if it makes them think twice then even better.

 

Also a strange argument to make that only the best players are benefiting from modern equipment and at the same time arguing that it would be terrible for golf to dial back said equipment.

 

 

[MattC555]

27 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Well, this will be fun.

 

My former playing partner, Old Tom, combined the first two holes and last two holes to come up with the present 18 hole course, because, get this: THEY WERE PAR 3's!

 

He didn't feel that they were proper golf holes, as the rest of the holes were two or three shotters, except for a couple of good ones out on the Loop.  So, out of a few short holes, Old Tom created the present 1st and 18th. 

 

The course that he finally improved, was played both counter-clockwise and clockwise for generations, each appreciating the challenge and the sport of playing over those links.  Now we have gotten to the point where many (but not you and Titleist) are coming to appreciate that the Old Course has lost some of the challenge and sport that previous eras came to appreciate.  Why?  Because former aerospace engineers were able to improve the ball and the driver immeasurable over the past 20 years.  Is this sustainable for the game?  The R&A and the USGA think not - and I agree.  I am glad to be on their side of the issue.

 

You know a thread has jumped the shark when Old Tom's playing partner's ghost shows up. 

[clevited]

This arguing about why there is parity is silly.  Golf is unlike other sports.  Golf has a ceiling and always has.  You can be an amazing golfer but it is exponentially harder to shoot a 59, vs a 69 no matter your talent level and conditions on the course on a given day.  You could be a robot and not beat a player that gets hot and sinks 80 foot putts for eagles on back to back holes on the final day.  That is golf.  

 

The other thing that isn't being considered is the will and determination to win.  That is not a talent, but a drive.  Talent wise, I believe there is parity.  Desire to win, I believe there just isn't as much of it.  Tiger and Jack hold almost unbreakable records.  The purses are so large that you are a millionaire after one tour win and that could take the wind out of a pro's sails thus diminishing their drive to win.  Look at Rory.  Obviously has the talent, but he isn't becoming Tiger like for 2 reasons.  1) He doesn't have the drive 2) talent parity, he is no longer the only one comparable to Tiger in talent.  I think DJ, Rory, JT, JS, Colin Mor, Heck even Bubba Watson all have the talent to win any given tournament but because of parity, because of chance, because of lack of drive they won't.  

 

This is all just my opinion of course based on my observations over the years.

[clevited]

11 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I dislike the outlier argument. Before Tiger came along they were saying there was too much talent to be dominant. There is a huge randomness and luck factor in golf and it takes a lot to rise to a level where you can overcome that consistently. And no one has been good enough to rise to that level. Ball striking is not far less important, the data does not back that up. I’d make the argument that driving now has an outsized role in the game but you still have to hit it well to win. Tournament winners are generally hitting it among the best tee to green and probably making a decent amount of putts, there are few crazy heater weeks where tournaments are won off short game. Cam Smith’s putting at The Open comes to mind but he was still hitting it pretty well.

 

If the modern short game is so much more difficult (I agree it’s more difficult in some respects) that seems like an area where you could separate yourself more.

 

Bottom line is we now know the best strategy is to smash it most of the time, so let’s dial that back some, if it makes them think twice then even better.

 

Also a strange argument to make that only the best players are benefiting from modern equipment and at the same time arguing that it would be terrible for golf to dial back said equipment.

 

 

 

Bolded part.  Why do you say that?  It isn't a strange argument at all.  Dialing back equipment hurts the average player disproportionally compared to the tour player.  If rolling back equipment won't change how they play the game, then why go through the trouble and risk hurting the average player bifurcation or not (bifurcation won't stop the inevitable trickle down to the average player which has been mentioned many times and is assumed likely true by more than just myself).  It doesn't make logical sense to try and fix something that isn't broken especially when the proposed solutions won't fix the imaginary problem anyway.

Edited July 27, 2022 by clevited

[buckeyefl]

53 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It might have been missed, but roger99 here is carrying on the same line of thinking that was espoused by the departed milesgiles

 

Now it makes sense. Thank you.

[Pastit]

55 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It might have been missed, but roger99 here is carrying on the same line of thinking that was espoused by the departed milesgiles (also his obsession with seeing once in a generation players). Essentially the contention is that only the best ball strikers (ie the guys who can hit their 4 irons the best) deserve to be the best golfers and win tournaments. The flip side is that guys who even the gap with their exceptional short game and on the green, don't deserve it, because nobody wants to watch a putting competition.  

 

The reality is actually kind of the opposite, the reason we don't have those kinds of outliers anymore is because despite there being some phenomenal ball strikers on tour (Rory, JT, Scheffler, Morikawa, etc) the modern short game, with lightning fast greens, is so much more difficult that only the guys who go on a heater have a chance of winning any given week. 

 

That begs the question, that it seems the miles, er roger, seems to want to dumb the game down to advantage the best ball strikers over everyone else. 

 

You might want to view replays of important tournaments in the 1990's, the greens are like football pitches. 

 

The game is a balance between all its aspects IMO, with a clear bias to good putters I suspect, given 35/72 of the typical course par is down to putting. Often what decides a tournament on a championship course, can be a long iron or fairway into a late par 5. E.G. Rory's 5-wood into an Irish Open last hole. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Bolded part.  Why do you say that?  It isn't a strange argument at all.  Dialing back equipment hurts the average player disproportionally compared to the tour player.  If rolling back equipment won't change how they play the game, then why go through the trouble and risk hurting the average player bifurcation or not (bifurcation won't stop the inevitable trickle down to the average player which has been mentioned many times and is assumed likely true by more than just myself).  It doesn't make logical sense to try and fix something that isn't broken especially when it won't fix the imaginary problem anyway.

It’s pretty straightforward, if the modern equipment you hold so dear hasn’t really helped the average player, then what’s the issue dialing it back some? How can equipment advances help the better player disproportionally but reversing them hurts the average player disproportionally? 

[Titleist99]

27 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

who actually cares, though?

 

why does time have to stand still in golf?  nowhere else in sports or in the world do we ask for things to go backwards. 

 

when the mound height was lowered, no one cried to the ghost of abner doubleday. same with james nasmith when the 3-point line was painted on the court. 

 

how about this brand of bifurcation:

 

certain courses around the world will be designated as “legacy courses” and will be left alone, frozen at their current distances, and can only be played with persimmon drivers and wound balls. everyone who wants a rollback is more than welcome to go play them to their hearts’ content

 

the rest will be left alone, for both pros and amateurs.  

Perfect compromise.........I can live with this.

[Pastit]

27 minutes ago, clevited said:

This arguing about why there is parity is silly.  Golf is unlike other sports.  Golf has a ceiling and always has.  You can be an amazing golfer but it is exponentially harder to shoot a 59, vs a 69 no matter your talent level and conditions on the course on a given day.  You could be a robot and not beat a player that gets hot and sinks 80 foot putts for eagles on back to back holes on the final day.  That is golf.  

 

The other thing that isn't being considered is the will and determination to win.  That is not a talent, but a drive.  Talent wise, I believe there is parity.  Desire to win, I believe there just isn't as much of it.  Tiger and Jack hold almost unbreakable records.  The purses are so large that you are a millionaire after one tour win and that could take the wind out of a pro's sails thus diminishing their drive to win.  Look at Rory.  Obviously has the talent, but he isn't becoming Tiger like for 2 reasons.  1) He doesn't have the drive 2) talent parity, he is no longer the only one comparable to Tiger in talent.  I think DJ, Rory, JT, JS, Colin Mor, Heck even Bubba Watson all have the talent to win any given tournament but because of parity, because of chance, because of lack of drive they won't.  

 

This is all just my opinion of course based on my observations over the years.

 

I'm not sure you can observe Rory " not having the drive ". 

 

There's that possibility of course but, as I'm sure has been covered already on here, the older one gets the more non-golf issues get in the way e.g. Norman, Faldo, Trevino, Jacklin and numerous others. 

 

I believe Rory is managing his career for longevity and is lucky enough to be able to afford that approach giving him a chance to redeem that Masters' disaster.

[Simpsonia]

38 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

who actually cares, though?

 

why does time have to stand still in golf?  nowhere else in sports or in the world do we ask for things to go backwards. 

 

when the mound height was lowered, no one cried to the ghost of abner doubleday. same with james nasmith when the 3-point line was painted on the court. 

 

how about this brand of bifurcation:

 

certain courses around the world will be designated as “legacy courses” and will be left alone, frozen at their current distances, and can only be played with persimmon drivers and wound balls. everyone who wants a rollback is more than welcome to go play them to their hearts’ content

 

the rest will be left alone, for both pros and amateurs.  

 

I mean you don't even need to limit it to persimmon and wound balls. Just allow courses to designate their own "distance profile" in a ball that's used for tournaments there. So if the R&A wants a certain distance for the Old Course, say 15% distance reduction, then all tour events/majors on the OC play with a 15% reduction ball. Same at Pebble or other short courses like TPC River Highlands. Keeps the stated purpose of not needing to lengthen tees for courses that can't, and doesn't involve uprooting literally every aspect of a game for a .00001% portion of the game (a major held at a historically short course every 5-6 years). 

[gvogel]

49 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Bolded part.  Why do you say that?  It isn't a strange argument at all.  Dialing back equipment hurts the average player disproportionally compared to the tour player.  If rolling back equipment won't change how they play the game, then why go through the trouble and risk hurting the average player bifurcation or not (bifurcation won't stop the inevitable trickle down to the average player which has been mentioned many times and is assumed likely true by more than just myself).  It doesn't make logical sense to try and fix something that isn't broken especially when the proposed solutions won't fix the imaginary problem anyway.

I don't know how you can make the observation that bifurcation would have an inevitable trickle down effect to the average player.  It sounds as though you would continue to play the equipment that you enjoy, and I think that most would play the modern equipment, unless playing under a condition of competition tournament where rolled back equipment would be mandatory.  Some might play a rolled back driver and ball in order to compare their efforts to the best players - but that would be their choice.  And probably only WRX'ers would appreciate the difference.  Most would gleefully go on playing the current stuff.

[gvogel]

22 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I mean you don't even need to limit it to persimmon and wound balls. Just allow courses to designate their own "distance profile" in a ball that's used for tournaments there. So if the R&A wants a certain distance for the Old Course, say 15% distance reduction, then all tour events/majors on the OC play with a 15% reduction ball. Same at Pebble or other short courses like TPC River Highlands. Keeps the stated purpose of not needing to lengthen tees for courses that can't, and doesn't involve uprooting literally every aspect of a game for a .00001% portion of the game (a major held at a historically short course every 5-6 years). 

You have just described the Jack Nicklaus solution.

[Simpsonia]

Just now, gvogel said:

You have just described the Jack Nicklaus solution.

 

Which I have absolute no beef it. My disagreement is with rolling back every other aspect of club equipment or making huge blanket changes such as mandating a rules-wide ball change. 

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, ChipStrokes said:

who actually cares, though?

 

why does time have to stand still in golf?  nowhere else in sports or in the world do we ask for things to go backwards. 

 

when the mound height was lowered, no one cried to the ghost of abner doubleday. same with james nasmith when the 3-point line was painted on the court. 

 

how about this brand of bifurcation:

 

certain courses around the world will be designated as “legacy courses” and will be left alone, frozen at their current distances, and can only be played with persimmon drivers and wound balls. everyone who wants a rollback is more than welcome to go play them to their hearts’ content

 

the rest will be left alone, for both pros and amateurs.  

I would go that far personally, but I would like to see ball striking more emphasized, particularly in majors.  A good drive could be 310 instead of 350. That way the architecture is still relevant and players need to use their brains not just pull driver a la Winged Foot. 

[ChipStrokes]

4 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

I would go that far personally, but I would like to see ball striking more emphasized, particularly in majors.  A good drive could be 310 instead of 350. That way the architecture is still relevant and players need to use their brains not just pull driver a la Winged Foot. 

there are plenty of guys, in every tournament on the schedule, who are hitting 3W and long irons off the tee on par 4s.  

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, ChipStrokes said:

who actually cares, though?

 

why does time have to stand still in golf?  nowhere else in sports or in the world do we ask for things to go backwards. 

 

when the mound height was lowered, no one cried to the ghost of abner doubleday. same with james nasmith when the 3-point line was painted on the court. 

 

how about this brand of bifurcation:

 

certain courses around the world will be designated as “legacy courses” and will be left alone, frozen at their current distances, and can only be played with persimmon drivers and wound balls. everyone who wants a rollback is more than welcome to go play them to their hearts’ content

 

the rest will be left alone, for both pros and amateurs.  

 

First bolded point, tennis racquets.

 

Second, it was lowered (and standardized) to restore competitive balance.  In the case of golf, the golfer is competing both against the field but also against the course.  Fitting the equipment to the course is much easier than modifying the course where it may be way more expensive, more difficult or impossible.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

10 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Some might play a rolled back driver and ball in order to compare their efforts to the best players -

 

Sure, I'm going to play a shorter driver and a squishier ball to compare myself to the long hitters on the tour. 😁

 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Double Mocha Man

[So_Cal]

3 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

there are plenty of guys, in every tournament on the schedule, who are hitting 3W and long irons off the tee on par 4s.  

I’m sorry but that’s not true.  You must not have watched The Open.  Driver wedge into 600 yard par 5s happened a lot.  Driver putt was more common that driver 3 wood into par 4s. 

[Double Mocha Man]

13 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Most would gleefully go on playing the current stuff.

 

But that current stuff is going to get old and fall apart in no time. Then what?

[clevited]

44 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

It’s pretty straightforward, if the modern equipment you hold so dear hasn’t really helped the average player, then what’s the issue dialing it back some? How can equipment advances help the better player disproportionally but reversing them hurts the average player disproportionally? 

 

I think I see the problem here.  I misread your post and you seem to be confusing multiple talking points of two different sides of the argument.  I at least have not been saying that pros benefit the most from equipment while also saying it would be terrible to roll it back.  Those are two completely different things and not agued by anyone I don't think.

 

You have pro rollbackers saying that the modern equipment helps pros more than average players of the game and thus it should be rolled back.  Meanwhile you have anti rollbackers saying pros don't benefit from it like that and hit the middle so often they don't need it as much as the average player and thus rolling back equipment doesn't hurt the pro nearly as much as it does the average player.

 

You seem to be combining both arguments as if it is one someone has been claiming.  I am not sure who has been saying that and if they have given the impression they were, then they probably had a brain fart or two or didn't read someone's post very thoroughly.  If it was me giving you that impression, then totally brain farts/misread a post.  If I personally posted such things, please show me so I can correct my error.  That is not my position at all on this subject.

[ChipStrokes]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

First bolded point, tennis racquets.

 

Second, it was lowered (and standardized) to restore competitive balance.  In the case of golf, the golfer is competing both against the field but also against the course.  Fitting the equipment to the course is much easier than modifying the course where it may be way more expensive, more difficult or impossible.

 

fair enough on tennis racquets.

 

but if you want to talk about competitive balance, then i still don't see the problem in golf.  everyone in the field is playing "against" the same course and has access to the same equipment.  that seems as fair and balanced as we can hope to get.

 

if you start nerfing the ball or the clubs to hurt the longer guys more than the shorter guys, then you've introduced equity into the sport, which doesn't seem fair at all.

 

that's like telling aaron judge he can only use a 22oz bat because he hits too many home runs and we need to give the rest of the league a chance to be competitive with him.

[ChipStrokes]

3 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

I’m sorry but that’s not true.  You must not have watched The Open.  Driver wedge into 600 yard par 5s happened a lot.  Driver putt was more common that driver 3 wood into par 4s. 

on baked out fairways that were running at 12+

 

please stop making this disingenuous argument over and over.

[clevited]

41 minutes ago, Pastit said:

 

I'm not sure you can observe Rory " not having the drive ". 

 

There's that possibility of course but, as I'm sure has been covered already on here, the older one gets the more non-golf issues get in the way e.g. Norman, Faldo, Trevino, Jacklin and numerous others. 

 

I believe Rory is managing his career for longevity and is lucky enough to be able to afford that approach giving him a chance to redeem that Masters' disaster.

 

As soon as ladies got into his life and Tiger fell from grace, he seemed to deviate from his upward trajectory.  That is my observation, I am just connecting the dots.  Seems too coincidental to not be a significant factor.

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

on baked out fairways that were running at 12+

 

please stop making this disingenuous argument over and over.

Yep, this is why the USGA and others do not take rollbackers seriously.........their ability to exaggerate.

[smashdn]

34 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I mean you don't even need to limit it to persimmon and wound balls. Just allow courses to designate their own "distance profile" in a ball that's used for tournaments there. So if the R&A wants a certain distance for the Old Course, say 15% distance reduction, then all tour events/majors on the OC play with a 15% reduction ball. Same at Pebble or other short courses like TPC River Highlands. Keeps the stated purpose of not needing to lengthen tees for courses that can't, and doesn't involve uprooting literally every aspect of a game for a .00001% portion of the game (a major held at a historically short course every 5-6 years). 

 

Just go across the board at whatever percent reduction is appropriate for "elite level golfers" and rock that.  PGAT could lead this.  Whatever percentage gets a truly "long" drive (flat ground, no other extenuating hills or concrete fairways) around 300-310 yards and I think you are in the ballpark where most all courses are still very relevant.  You are still going to have some places that would be on the shorter side (Prestwick for instance) but most would be fine and not "require" the "tricking up" that has become commonplace.  The courses that are long you now have flexibility to move up tees a shade and create a different challenge.  Cramming all the markers to the very back of the boxes leaves you no flexibility to adjust for conditions such as roll-out and wind.

 

Let PGAT be the tip of the spear.  Pick the percentage.  Socialize it.  Acclimatize to it.  Trickle it down to everyone else.  

 

I still think the ball is the answer.  They cost $4.  We go through a handful a round.

[clevited]

18 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I don't know how you can make the observation that bifurcation would have an inevitable trickle down effect to the average player.  It sounds as though you would continue to play the equipment that you enjoy, and I think that most would play the modern equipment, unless playing under a condition of competition tournament where rolled back equipment would be mandatory.  Some might play a rolled back driver and ball in order to compare their efforts to the best players - but that would be their choice.  And probably only WRX'ers would appreciate the difference.  Most would gleefully go on playing the current stuff.

 

I don't think you understand how the machine that is golf in its entirety works.  The inevitable trickle down effect will come in multiple ways.  Eventually, you won't be able to buy the non tour stuff as the tour stuff is what sells clubs.  That is where the advertising is, that is what often gets people to buy clubs.  Manufacturers will only make the tour legal stuff much like what occurred with the groove rule change.  The cost to make two lines of clubs will have to be absorbed by the consumer as has been stated by at least one manufacturer relatively recently.  They confirmed the cost would go up a lot.  I think it was mizuno that said that, and thus you will inevitably have only the one line available.  Then you have peer pressure from your playing group.  You will get your balls busted in your group if you are playing hot stuff and the others are playing tour legal stuff.  You also have the confusion it will create with leagues and tournaments.  What will the leagues adopt?  I bet it will depend on the course and new rules will not be uniformly followed even if it is just for the pros.  

 

My point is, it isn't hard to see the multiple ways this will essentially be forced onto the consumer bifurcation or not.  I think even Mr. Bulldog has eluded to something similar but I could be wrong.  One of the roll backers has admitted as much in this thread I recall.

[So_Cal]

8 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

on baked out fairways that were running at 12+

 

please stop making this disingenuous argument over and over.

I will continue to make it because it is relevant at all the majors I watch.  I’ve said it before but the equipment has allowed me in my early 40’s to go to a plus handicap with a driver wedge strategy.  It’s the first time I’ve ever been a plus and I rarely practice.   The equipment makes 300 yard drives very easy.  It’s not too much to ask to see the pros tested at the majors at a minimum.  

[ChipStrokes]

15 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

I will continue to make it because it is relevant at all the majors I watch.  I’ve said it before but the equipment has allowed me in my early 40’s to go to a plus handicap with a driver wedge strategy.  It’s the first time I’ve ever been a plus and I rarely practice.   The equipment makes 300 yard drives very easy.  It’s not too much to ask to see the pros tested at the majors at a minimum.  

it simply isn't

 

guys were hitting drives at the british open that were rolling 100+ yards.  DJ topped an iron that rolled futher than it flew.

 

those are course conditions, not equipment issues.

 

at the rainy honda classic, drives were going 265 yards. the average was 267.  they played with "modern" equipment, not persimmon woods.

 

https://datagolf.com/historical-tournament-stats?event_id=10&year=2022

 

if you and your plus handicap feel that the game is too easy, go buy an old driver on ebay and play it.  the solution there seems simple.

 

edit: as a matter of fact, there have only been 4 tournaments this season with an average driving distance over 300 yards.  i invite you to look through the website i linked for you and see for yourself.

Edited July 27, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[EALSAUCE]

Have the conditions of the fairways on tour been discussed yet? I think the fairway speeds play a significant factor into the distance issue as well, and also the undulations of courses at certain distances the pros usually carry. The fairways rub almost as fast as the greens, 15+ yards of rollout is the normal on tour, couple that with holes like they have in Hawaii and you have tour players that usually only average 280 hitting 320+ bombs.