distance debate

[gvogel]

3 minutes ago, ShupeSC said:

Gold star for doing your math homework right.

More importantly, they could shorten Riviera Country Club 5% from 7,013 to 6,662 and it plays harder if the ball goes 10% shorter, or they can set up Riviera at 6,312 (10% shorter) and it plays like the birdie fest it did last week.  Options.

[PorkChopExpress]

Just grow the rough and narrow/slow down the fairways

 

todays rough is nothing

 

[klebs01]

Growing the rough and narrowing the fairways puts more of a premium on distance. Not accuracy. It would actually make the problem worse by ensuring players work even harder to hit it farther. 

[jvincent]

49 minutes ago, ShupeSC said:

If a person hits the ball 350 and another hits it 275, who loses more distance if you roll back 10%?

 

Done correctly the distance loss would not be linear and the effect would be most pronounced on drivers.

 

Making up numbers, the short guy might lose 5% but the long guy would lose 10%.

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Again, what's the problem. 
The longer hitters will always have an advantage

 

Dialing back the equipment hurts the shorter hitters more

 

instead of keep asking what the problem is why not read the thread?

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

 

Done correctly the distance loss would not be linear and the effect would be most pronounced on drivers.

 

Making up numbers, the short guy might lose 5% but the long guy would lose 10%.

It sounds like you work for the USGA or one of the ball companies.  That, or you have a good understanding of the physics of a golf ball.  Do you have a solution, or a suggestion?

 

Earlier you mentioned that the USGA could change the testing protocol for the Overall Distance Standard, I believe.  What would equipment companies have to do to make a ball that would conform?

Edited February 26, 2022 by gvogel

[gvogel]

17 hours ago, Jwin323 said:

Make the ball lighter then.

For the 1931 season, the USGA did just that.  The ball specs were mandated at 1.68 inches in diameter (same as today, and larger than the 1.62 British ball), and a weight not to exceed 1.55 ounces (reduced from 1.62).  The best players called it the "floater", and did not like playing it in the wind.  The next year, the USGA relented and went to 1.68 inches diameter and 1.62 ounces, same as today.  Maybe 1.58 ounces could work.

[ThinkingPlus]

23 minutes ago, gvogel said:

It sounds like you work for the USGA or one of the ball companies.  That, or you have a good understanding of the physics of a golf ball.  Do you have a solution, or a suggestion?

 

Earlier you mentioned that the USGA could change the testing protocol for the Overall Distance Standard, I believe.  What would equipment companies have to do to make a ball that would conform?

More drag.  So larger ball or crappy dimples.

[ChipStrokes]

3 hours ago, ShupeSC said:

Not if they have the same scoring average. There are guys on tour that average around 280 off the tee that have better scoring averages then guys that hit it well over 300+.

…so then what’s the problem here?

[storm319]

3 hours ago, klebs01 said:

Growing the rough and narrowing the fairways puts more of a premium on distance. Not accuracy. It would actually make the problem worse by ensuring players work even harder to hit it farther. 

An equipment rollback would do the same. Do you really think the players on tour are going to simply except the distance loss? No way. They will put even more emphasis on swinging faster to make up for as much of the loss as possible.

[ShupeSC]

48 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

…so then what’s the problem here?

There isn’t. 

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, ChipStrokes said:

…so then what’s the problem here?

 

try reading the thread 

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

try reading the thread 

i have. you haven’t really explained why distance is such a problem other than you don’t like the way golf is played now. 

 

i wish i could change the rules every time i didn’t like something. but that’s not how it works. 

[MUNIGRIT]

6 hours ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Just grow the rough and narrow/slow down the fairways

 

todays rough is nothing

 

Bombs away! How about no rough all fairway or all rough and no fairway? Wait bombers still at huge advantage. It just seems like distance is a huge skill in golf that some want to nueter out of the game.

[jvincent]

4 hours ago, gvogel said:

It sounds like you work for the USGA or one of the ball companies.  That, or you have a good understanding of the physics of a golf ball.  Do you have a solution, or a suggestion?

 

Earlier you mentioned that the USGA could change the testing protocol for the Overall Distance Standard, I believe.  What would equipment companies have to do to make a ball that would conform?

 

Just a golf nerd with a science/engineering background.

 

All the ball companies would need to do is change the dimple pattern, as @ThinkingPlus has noted, to have more drag. Drag is a function of velocity squared so you'd end up with the differential between the longest and shortest drivers shrinking because the longest guys would lose more distance, percentage wise, than the shorter ones.

 

As I mentioned earlier if the USGA wanted to spin this they could increase the distance limit for the new test conditions compared to what it is now.

 

Would balls made to the new spec suck? I don't think so. For us mere mortals the loss in distance would probably be negligible.

[Nard_S]

It's not a distance problem, it's a dispersion problem. The ball flies too straight, and no it's not that they are that good.  They just have better gear, that's all. We are all alike in that way.

[StudentGolfer4]

13 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

i have. you haven’t really explained why distance is such a problem other than you don’t like the way golf is played now. 

 

i wish i could change the rules every time i didn’t like something. but that’s not how it works. 

Disclaimer, I haven’t read the entire thread. 
 

To me the distance problem is much more than guys hitting it 350 yards and low scores. The real problem is what it is doing to golf as a whole.

 

1. Some of the best courses in the world have become and are becoming obsolete because they are not long enough for professional golf. Right or wrong, amateur golf follows what people see on TV. 
 

2. To keep up with distance demands courses are needing more and more real estate. This means that it cost more money to build a golf course and prices to play said golf course are higher. 
 

3. Bigger/longer/wider courses are more expensive to maintain. This leads to higher prices as well. 
 

4. Water! In many parts of the US water restrictions are in place and the situation is becoming increasingly dire. I’ll have to find the article, but if I recall correctly, in Utah something like 90% of the state was in a drought and 50% of the state was at the highest alert level. Places like Arizona, California, and much of the southwest is having major issues with water. It’s been announced that water supply from the Colorado is going to be severely rationed in the upcoming years. 40 million people rely on the Colorado for drinking water. The bigger these course get the more water It takes to maintain them. 
 

This is the first time the US has ever declared a water shortage for the Colorado. It’s not far off to say there may be a day when golf courses aren’t allowed to water their courses in certain areas of the US. It’s happened for years with residential areas and lawns in the southwest. 

5. I doubt the USGA has any interest I’m addressing the problems but the distance issue is not just about lower score and longer drives. 
 

excuse the typos. I was on my phone. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by StudentGolfer4
Typos

[milesgiles]

8 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

i have. you haven’t really explained why distance is such a problem other than you don’t like the way golf is played now. 

 

i wish i could change the rules every time i didn’t like something. but that’s not how it works. 

 

theres at least half a dozen reasons itt alone 

[Titleist99]

13 hours ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

Disclaimer, I haven’t read the entire thread. 
 

To me the distance problem is much more than guys hitting it 350 yards and low scores. The real problem is what it is doing to golf as a whole.

 

1. Some of the best courses in the world have become and are becoming obsolete because they are not long enough for professional golf. Right or wrong, amateur golf follows what people see on TV. 
 

2. To keep up with distance demands courses are needing more and more real estate. This means that it cost more money to build a golf course and prices to play said golf course are higher. 
 

3. Bigger/longer/wider courses are more expensive to maintain. This leads to higher prices as well. 
 

4. Water! In many parts of the US water restrictions are in place and the situation is becoming increasingly dire. I’ll have to find the article, but if I recall correctly, in Utah something like 90% of the state was in a drought and 50% of the state was at the highest alert level. Places like Arizona, California, and much of the southwest is having major issues with water. It’s been announced that water supply from the Colorado is going to be severely rationed in the upcoming years. 40 million people rely on the Colorado for drinking water. The bigger these course get the more water It takes to maintain them. 
 

This is the first time the US has ever declared a water shortage for the Colorado. It’s not far off to say there may be a day when golf courses aren’t allowed to water their courses in certain areas of the US. It’s happened for years with residential areas and lawns in the southwest. 

5. I doubt the USGA has any interest I’m addressing the problems but the distance issue is not just about lower score and longer drives. 
 

excuse the typos. I was on my phone. 

No golf course is obsolete if everyone plays the same course and the lowest score wins, which is the object of Golf. (See Pebble Beach).

 

The reason for most courses not getting a PGATOUR event is that their property won't sustain the infrastructure needed.....i.e .....Parking, Grandstands, hospitality suites, equipment trailers, manufacturing trucks, television truck, miles of cable, etc...

 

Most efficient golf courses water their properties with treated wastewater and allow some of their property to go dormant during certain parts of the season. (See desert Golf)

 

Instead of purchasing land add a few water hazards and make the rough and bunkers true penalty areas.....

 

Add more drivable par4's and shorter / tougher Par3's......

 

If anyone think that golf is too easy, and every Pro hit it straight as you can point......watch PGATTOUR LIVE on the weekend and you'll see the other 60 guys instead of the top five that lead the tournaments...

 

Golf has never been more popular, don't screw it up by trying to fix a problem that don't exist.     Just my opinion.

[Titleist99]

Sooo, watching The Honda Classic and these guys are hitting irons off the first tee and it's a Par4......Why? Everyone knows that there's no strategy in golf you hit driver and go find it, right!?!

[Titleist99]

Honda Classic....Hole four, Touring pro teeing off with irons again. what are they doing.....everybody knows that you take the driver on every par4.

 

Pros voluntarily giving up distance.....wow! (sarcasm)

[Pastit]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Honda Classic....Hole four, Touring pro teeing off with irons again. what are they doing.....everybody knows that you take the driver on every par4.

 

Pros voluntarily giving up distance.....wow! (sarcasm)

Well surely it proves the point that drivers are too potent ? It’s become boring, this year particularly, now that tour pros using metals can keep up with Jack’s persimmon. Don’t know whether it’s me, but the Honda seems flat. 

[ChipStrokes]

Berger is 172nd in driving distance and is on his way to wrapping up a win…

 

@milesgiles is he just another “outlier”?

 

oh and the guy chasing him is 89th…

Edited February 27, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[bacchus00]

2 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

Berger is 172nd in driving distance and is on his way to wrapping up a win…

 

@milesgiles is he just another “outlier”?

To be fair it's a bit of a small sample size, those stats are measured a little funky sometimes when it's early in the year.  He's been in the 65-100 range last couple years. 

[Titleist99]

2 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

Berger is 172nd in driving distance and is on his way to wrapping up a win…

 

@milesgiles is he just another “outlier”?

Not so fast.....Berger is trying to give it away....

[ChipStrokes]

4 minutes ago, bacchus00 said:

To be fair it's a bit of a small sample size, those stats are measured a little funky sometimes when it's early in the year.  He's been in the 65-100 range last couple years. 

the point stands. 

 

if he wins, he’ll be the third or fourth guy to win this season from the middle to bottom of the pack as far as distance. 

[ChipStrokes]

9 minutes ago, Pastit said:

Jack’s persimmon.

is this the metric we’re using to determine what length is acceptable?

[Pastit]

21 hours ago, gvogel said:

For the 1931 season, the USGA did just that.  The ball specs were mandated at 1.68 inches in diameter (same as today, and larger than the 1.62 British ball), and a weight not to exceed 1.55 ounces (reduced from 1.62).  The best players called it the "floater", and did not like playing it in the wind.  The next year, the USGA relented and went to 1.68 inches diameter and 1.62 ounces, same as today.  Maybe 1.58 ounces could work.

I’m too lazy to do the maths tonight. Do you know how the relative densities compare ? They look close to me. 

[Pastit]

2 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

is this the metric we’re using to determine what length is acceptable?

I was thinking of that drive at St Andrew’s when he went through the 18th green and nearly off the course playing with Doug Sanders ( of wobbly knees fame ). I still see modern pros short of that green with latest gear. The corollary: is it a bit rich of Jack to complain about big hitting ?

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

Berger is 172nd in driving distance and is on his way to wrapping up a win…

 

@milesgiles is he just another “outlier”?

 

oh and the guy chasing him is 89th…

 

172 ball speed isnt slow..

 

AVERAGE ball speeds for the WHOLE field are up, way up, over twenty years.. since the wretched 460 driver came out. 

 

edit, just look how weak the field is when they cant wang the driver on every hole. That tells you everything 

Edited February 27, 2022 by milesgiles