distance debate

[Double Mocha Man]

11 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

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 you're saying it will be a fluster cluck.

[smashdn]

28 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

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.

 

So let me ask then, why have equipment regulations that limit performance at all?

 

Like I said, a golfer is not really competing against the field (in stroke play), they are competing against the course and then comparing how well they competed against the course at the end of the number of rounds.  Match play is the truer measure of competing against another golfer, it just has logistical issues as the fields get larger and TV becomes an important factor.

[ChipStrokes]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

So let me ask then, why have equipment regulations that limit performance at all?

 

Like I said, a golfer is not really competing against the field (in stroke play), they are competing against the course and then comparing how well they competed against the course at the end of the number of rounds.  Match play is the truer measure of competing against another golfer, it just has logistical issues as the fields get larger and TV becomes an important factor.

good question

 

a line has to be drawn somewhere to make sure everyone is playing the same game.  right now, the line is drawn at 460cc and a certain (i dont know exactly what) COR value.  

 

once that line is established, the only thing differentiating competitors is their individual skill level.

 

i'm in total favor of not advancing that line any further forward, i just think that moving it backwards is a solution in search of a problem.  

 

my question to you is:

 

if the ruling bodies impose a rollback, doesn't matter how they choose to do it, and manage to take 10% of the distance out of the game, what happens when the massive R&D departments at the OEMs manage to gain that 10% back over the next couple of years while holding to the new standards?

 

the RBs can only make rules reactively.  they can't possibly stay ahead of every single advance in technology that the engineers can come up with.  so what do they do 5 or 10 years down the road after they've already caused a huge disruption only to end up in the same exact spot?

[So_Cal]

42 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

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.

Sorry I’m not buying your cherry picked argument.  Rory was hitting them 360-370 at the Canadian Open on soft turf. 

[PorkChopExpress]

Use a tournament ball - restricted top flight that floats on the water.  hahahahaha

 

Like F1 tires, Hard, Soft, Medium lol

And they get a limited amount, sorry Hideki (3M open). you got no more balls hahahaha

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, So_Cal said:

Sorry I’m not buying your cherry picked argument.  Rory was hitting them 360-370 at the Canadian Open on soft turf. 

my argument is the average driving distance, tournament by tournament, across the entire 2022 schedule.  it included an invitation for you to look at the same site i used to get my information.

 

your rebuttal, ironically enough, is to cherry pick one guy and a few of his drives at a single tournament.

[smashdn]

1 minute ago, ChipStrokes said:

good question

 

a line has to be drawn somewhere to make sure everyone is playing the same game.  right now, the line is drawn at 460cc and a certain (i dont know exactly what) COR value.  

 

once that line is established, the only thing differentiating competitors is their individual skill level.

 

i'm in total favor of not advancing that line any further forward, i just think that moving it backwards is a solution in search of a problem.  

 

When were the driver rules promulgated? 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, ChipStrokes said:

my question to you is:

 

if the ruling bodies impose a rollback, doesn't matter how they choose to do it, and manage to take 10% of the distance out of the game, what happens when the massive R&D departments at the OEMs manage to gain that 10% back over the next couple of years while holding to the new standards?

 

the RBs can only make rules reactively.  they can't possibly stay ahead of every single advance in technology that the engineers can come up with.  so what do they do 5 or 10 years down the road after they've already caused a huge disruption only to end up in the same exact spot?

 

I am no authority on their testing methods but I would suggest a performance criteria test as opposed to a characteristic test.  Meaning, it really doesn't matter if the ball is made however it is made, cover material, dimple geometry, aerodynamics, etc. so long as when we (ruling bodies) plop it in our standard test equipment it doesn't go farther than so many yards when struck by the test equipment moving at so many feet per second or meters per second at such and such angle.  I would just make sure that whatever my test parameters are for my swing or striking object, are the absolute "ideal" strike parameters.  Meaning, to me, the perfect strike made at a speed that should be either humanly impossible or so improbable that it would be inconceivable to swing that fast.  Then, if you are able to drive the ball beyond whatever distance that gets you too with a super-human swing speed and an absolutely perfect strike, you have unequivocally "earned it."

 

It might also be helpful to think in terms of what characteristics were missed and what the testing misses.  Maybe that COR value is too high?  Maybe the testing method leaves out other variables that are manipulatable that increase ball flight.  Ultimately. it is ball flight that should be measured, not a characteristic of metal or the material the face is made of.  That is only one part of the system.  The performance of the system as a whole is what should be measured

 

-----

Underlined part - which is why I would just stick with a performance based criteria and not try to create one based upon characteristics that can be circumvented or massaged to create more distance.

 

On the one hand I think it wise to always come at it with the mind-set that there is "more in the tank" for the engineers to eek out performance-wise with the equipment.  So you don't do exactly what you are saying and take out 10% only for it to be all for naught in five years time.  On the other hand, when they are starting to resort to improving aerodynamics to allow you to swing the clubhead faster, I also have to think we are nearing the bottom of the bucket when it comes to material changes and designs that improve face performance. 

 

But if you go backwards say 10% and 30 years from now we are right back here due to whatever reason, at least we bought golf courses 30 years.  If you do absolutely nothing it only goes further in the direction they say they don't want it (they being the ruling bodies).

[PorkChopExpress]

Guess it would give a new meaning to TOUR ISSUE - hahahaha

 

Use your tour issue mystic magic - oh wait. You're using restricted equip, your stuff is shorter than my retail magic

[smashdn]

1 minute ago, PorkChopExpress said:

Guess it would give a new meaning to TOUR ISSUE - hahahaha

 

Use your tour issue mystic magic - oh wait. You're using restricted equip, your stuff is shorter than my retail magic

 

If you take efficacy argument away, that is what the groove rule did.  And here most of us are, playing "neutered" tour issued equipment without paying it any mind.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Why would you care about reduced distance specs for elite players?  They won't affect you one iota.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

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

Since 98% of the market for golf equipment (probably more, since elite ams and pros get free equipment) will still be playing equipment made to the current specs, or perhaps specs even relaxed, there still be a huge market for new and "better" equipment.  You will not have any trouble upgrading.

[PorkChopExpress]

5 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

If you take efficacy argument away, that is what the groove rule did.  And here most of us are, playing "neutered" tour issued equipment without paying it any mind.

 

Groove rule did nothing

[So_Cal]

11 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

my argument is the average driving distance, tournament by tournament, across the entire 2022 schedule.  it included an invitation for you to look at the same site i used to get my information.

 

your rebuttal, ironically enough, is to cherry pick one guy and a few of his drives at a single tournament.

Does that include holes when guys are laying up with 4 iron?  Sure seems so. 

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, PorkChopExpress said:

 

Groove rule did nothing

 

Do you know what efficacy means?

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, ChipStrokes said:

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.

Was there equity in golf in the 1960's through 1980's when players such as Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Greg Norman were longer than their peers?  Those excellent players didn't seem to be hurt by balls which didn't go as far, and small headed drivers with COR's of around .770.

[ChipStrokes]

7 minutes ago, smashdn said:

When were the driver rules promulgated? 

no idea.  

7 minutes ago, smashdn said:

I am no authority on their testing methods but I would suggest a performance criteria test as opposed to a characteristic test.  Meaning, it really doesn't matter if the ball is made however it is made, cover material, dimple geometry, aerodynamics, etc. so long as when we (ruling bodies) plop it in our standard test equipment it doesn't go farther than so many yards when struck by the test equipment moving at so many feet per second or meters per second at such and such angle.  I would just make sure that whatever my test parameters are for my swing or striking object, are the absolute "ideal" strike parameters.  Meaning, to me, the perfect strike made at a speed that should be either humanly impossible or so improbable that it would be inconceivable to swing that fast.  Then, if you are able to drive the ball beyond whatever distance that gets you too with a super-human swing speed and an absolutely perfect strike, you have unequivocally "earned it."

so basically a rule stating "the ball can only fly 315 yards at an absolute maximum under all conditions slower than a swing speed of 150mph"

 

if your drive then flies 320, what?  do we walk it back to the 315 line? or allow the extra yardage because you've earned it?

 

this feels like men's pro softball to me, where they're allowed X number of home runs each game and every ball over the fence after that is a double.  it has a very manufactured feel to it.

8 minutes ago, smashdn said:

On the one hand I think it wise to always come at it with the mind-set that there is "more in the tank" for the engineers to eek out performance-wise with the equipment.  So you don't do exactly what you are saying and take out 10% only for it to be all for naught in five years time.  On the other hand, when they are starting to resort to improving aerodynamics to allow you to swing the clubhead faster, I also have to think we are nearing the bottom of the bucket when it comes to material changes and designs that improve face performance. 

 

But if you go backwards say 10% and 30 years from now we are right back here due to whatever reason, at least we bought golf courses 30 years.  If you do absolutely nothing it only goes further in the direction they say they don't want it (they being the ruling bodies).

i agree, you have to approach these things with an eye to the future and with the idea that an engineer with a massive budget will beat you every time.  but i don't think the ruling bodies, especially with their attachment to history and the past, will do that.

 

to your last point, it just smacks of "well let's kick the can down the road.  whoever's running the show in 3 decades can figure it out then!" 

[Double Mocha Man]

7 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Why would you care about reduced distance specs for elite players?  They won't affect you one iota.

 

Not true unless there is bifurcation.

[ChipStrokes]

2 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Does that include holes when guys are laying up with 4 iron?  Sure seems so. 

wait, you mean doing the exact thing you said they don't do just a few posts ago?

[So_Cal]

Just now, ChipStrokes said:

wait, you mean doing the exact thing you said they don't do just a few posts ago?

Well it happens on crappy tour courses with water at 250

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

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.

Wait, you're saying that if manufacturers have to make de-tuned drivers for elite players, that the cost of two lines of clubs would be prohibitive?  Balderdash.  There is nothing expensive about making a smaller headed driver with a thicker face for less COR.  Heck, they might be able to make it out of steel instead of the more expensive titanium.  The cost of tooling for one additional club, and perhaps for changing the faces of fairway woods, would be minimal.  Going backwards is much easier and less expensive than coming out with new designs (such as all carbon clubheads).

[ChipStrokes]

2 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Well it happens on crappy tour courses with water at 250

i'm not sure what argument you're making at this point.  

 

you've said they hit driver too far and you'd like to see them on courses where they have to think about their tee club and not just smash driver.

 

to support your claim, you point to the british open, a wide open links course with rock hard fairways, where i tried showing you that the average driving distance was just 304, one of  only 4 tournaments all year with an average over 300.

 

i point out to you that guys pull less than driver on par 4s a lot and as a result, the average driving distance at tournaments is usually well below 300

 

then you say that they only do that because the course is crappy and there's water at 250.

 

you've talked yourself a full 360* in a circle.  

 

i'm gonna hop off of this merry go round now.  

[ChipStrokes]

10 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Was there equity in golf in the 1960's through 1980's when players such as Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Greg Norman were longer than their peers?  Those excellent players didn't seem to be hurt by balls which didn't go as far, and small headed drivers with COR's of around .770.

they played the same ball and drivers as their shorter hitting competitors, much the same way rory, bryson and DJ do now.  

 

if back in the 70s, the RBs wanted to institute a ball that took more distance away from jack than it did from someone near the bottom of the distance list, i'd imagine he wouldn't be too pleased with that idea.

[So_Cal]

Just now, ChipStrokes said:

i'm not sure what argument you're making at this point.  

 

you've said they hit driver too far and you'd like to see them on courses where they have to think about their tee club and not just smash driver.

 

to support your claim, you point to the british open, a wide open links course with rock hard fairways, where i tried showing you that the average driving distance was just 304, one of  only 4 tournaments all year with an average over 300.

 

i point out to you that guys pull less than driver on par 4s a lot and as a result, the average driving distance at tournaments is usually well below 300

 

then you say that they only do that because the course is crappy and there's water at 250.

 

you've talked yourself a full 360* in a circle.  

 

i'm gonna hop off of this merry go round now.  

There are plenty of forced layups on tour.  Not going to circle jerk with people who dislike skill and want to reward mediocrity.  I want to see ball striking skill required at the majors at a minimum.  This means balls that don’t go as far and possibly smaller driver heads.  Peace.  I’m out for a while. 

[gvogel]

11 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Not true unless there is bifurcation.

Which is exactly what the USGA is talking about - BIFURCATION!

 

(You have no worries about the equipment that you will play.)

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, So_Cal said:

There are plenty of forced layups on tour.  Not going to circle jerk with people who dislike skill and want to reward mediocrity.  I want to see ball striking skill required at the majors at a minimum.  This means balls that don’t go as far and possibly smaller driver heads.  Peace.  I’m out for a while. 

[smashdn]

14 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

no idea.  

so basically a rule stating "the ball can only fly 315 yards at an absolute maximum under all conditions slower than a swing speed of 150mph"

 

if your drive then flies 320, what?  do we walk it back to the 315 line? or allow the extra yardage because you've earned it?

 

this feels like men's pro softball to me, where they're allowed X number of home runs each game and every ball over the fence after that is a double.  it has a very manufactured feel to it.

i agree, you have to approach these things with an eye to the future and with the idea that an engineer with a massive budget will beat you every time.  but i don't think the ruling bodies, especially with their attachment to history and the past, will do that.

 

to your last point, it just smacks of "well let's kick the can down the road.  whoever's running the show in 3 decades can figure it out then!" 

 

I think that would be better than (analogy on the way) telling the bakers of cakes they can only use so much sugar in an effect to limit the sweetness of the cake, only to completely ignore all the other ways the bakers can make a cake sweet.

 

Like I mentioned in my testing methodology part, I think you make the test irrespective of any current golfer's abilities, but rather a measure beyond anyone's current abilities that it would be so improbable, verging on impossible, to swing a club that hard/fast that you would never need to touch it in our lifetimes.  If that superman then comes along that can exceed the distance, you tip your hat and the ruling bodies need to then immediately look at how and why.  The metal headed driver was not new in 1987 or whenever they started gaining acceptance.  What I think got them was hubris of thinking they knew what manufacturers could do and what good players wanted.  They approached the regs much too narrowly minded.

 

I don't know how you don't approach it with a desired max in mind and pick it instead of going with a single or handful of characteristics that leave ambiguity with which they can work around.

 

If "the test" limits the flight to say 300 yards, that doesn't mean there won't be any drives longer than 300 yards, it means the equipment alone is only capable of producing 300 yard drives for the most part.  Guy nuts one and it floats on the wind or he lands it to take advantage of a speed lost or downslope just right, you tip your hat and say well-played.

 

The local range uses restricted flight golf balls to allow them to use their short range without having to pick balls from the fairway that is perpendicular to the end of it or the road beyond.  There are still people who can hit the ball beyond the end of the range and there are conditions that exist that allow even more people to do it.  Also, there are places in the range you can catch the backside of a small hill and let it "shoot" your ball when it hits.

[gvogel]

14 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

no idea.  

so basically a rule stating "the ball can only fly 315 yards at an absolute maximum under all conditions slower than a swing speed of 150mph"

 

if your drive then flies 320, what?  do we walk it back to the 315 line? or allow the extra yardage because you've earned it?

 

this feels like men's pro softball to me, where they're allowed X number of home runs each game and every ball over the fence after that is a double.  it has a very manufactured feel to it.

i agree, you have to approach these things with an eye to the future and with the idea that an engineer with a massive budget will beat you every time.  but i don't think the ruling bodies, especially with their attachment to history and the past, will do that.

 

to your last point, it just smacks of "well let's kick the can down the road.  whoever's running the show in 3 decades can figure it out then!" 

If, under the testing guidelines for Overall Distance Standard, a ball flies 320 when the standard is 315, then the ball is illegal.

 

If you are playing with a legal ball, and you hit a driver 320, there is no problem.  You are playing with a legal ball.  Wind, ground, altitude and other conditions can have an effect.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

 

I disagree that it should be across the board, but it doesn't seem like were all that far apart. I think the biggest disagreements are more with all your fellow rollbackers who think that drivers need to be 260cc, and balls need to spin like like balatas or else it isn't "real" golf. 

[Double Mocha Man]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Which is exactly what the USGA is talking about - BIFURCATION!

 

(You have no worries about the equipment that you will play.)

In fact, if there is bifurcation I hope the OEM's let their research and development departments go crazy... so we mere mortals can hit it way past the touring pros.  While they're at it let's have a driver that'll hit it past Kyle Berkshire.

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, gvogel said:

If, under the testing guidelines for Overall Distance Standard, a ball flies 320 when the standard is 315, then the ball is illegal.

 

If you are playing with a legal ball, and you hit a driver 320, there is no problem.  You are playing with a legal ball.  Wind, ground, altitude and other conditions can have an effect.

so let me get this straight...

 

if the ball goes 320, it's illegal?

 

but if you're massively wind-aided and it goes 320, you're all good.

 

i see now.  this won't cause any problems at all.

 

how about just putting a huge net at the 300 yard mark, 60 yards wide and 150 feet tall?