distance debate

[PorkChopExpress]

19 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Do you know what efficacy means?

 

read the whole thing porkchop, read lol

[Double Mocha Man]

11 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

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.

 

Yes, Jack should have been required to play the PoDo ball.

[smashdn]

10 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

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. 

 

I think the mentions of the clubhead size is just spit-balling another potential solution.  I won't say I have the answer but it seems rather hard to justify changing every wood-type club when you can just change the performance of (outside of tees) the cheapest piece of golf equipment.  Plus it is hit on every single shot (not counting penalty strokes) where woods obviously are not.

 

Seems rather elementary at this point you have to change the ball if you change anything at all.

Edited July 27, 2022 by smashdn

[clevited]

27 minutes ago, gvogel said:

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).

 

I am basing what I said off of statements from a manufacturer and other knowledgeable people.  You are disagreeing with them, not me.  Don't say balderdash unless you know how that all works first hand.  You are speculating while I am restating what much more knowledgeable sources on this particular subject has said.

[gvogel]

18 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

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?

Do you understand how the current Overall Distance Standard operates under the current rules?

[clevited]

28 minutes 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. 

 

Thank you, I know I need a break from your blind dart throwing logic.  It is hard to keep up with you.  When you come back can you be more consistent with your arguments?  I think everyone will appreciate it and we can have more honest discussion.  I do enjoy some of your thoughts but man, think harder, type slower please.

[gvogel]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I am basing what I said off of statements from a manufacturer and other knowledgeable people.  You are disagreeing with them, not me.  Don't say balderdash unless you know how that all works first hand.  You are speculating while I am restating what much more knowledgeable sources on this particular subject has said.

I think that your sources are giving you answers that you want to hear, or answers that are the company line because said company does not want an equipment roll back, because they will lose a marketing angle.  If they still have tooling from the earliest metal woods, they might not have to re-tool at all.  But of course, an equipment company would be against a roll back because all drivers would become much more standardized, with much less room for innovation.  I think that would be good for the game overall (uniformity of equipment for all players), but it would also hurt their bottom lines.

[PorkChopExpress]

What does ball striking skill required at the majors mean?

 

Is Tigers ball striking skill not the same at a non-major?

[clevited]

 

@gvogel Type in Interview with Chris Voshall on youtube.

 

Opening 20 seconds of the video (from a competing website so I don't think I can post without it being taken down).

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "If you tell us we have to develop a set of clubs for them (points) and a set of clubs for them (points), there's cost there that we will pass on".

 

Interviewer: "Because those guys don't pay you (pointing)."

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "They don't pay us, absolutely." 

 

Interviewer:  "So somebody has to eat that."

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "Someone has to eat that and it's not going to be us."

 

This is an example of what is going to happen and inevitably, it would be better for them if the consumer adopts the "pro gear" and I am sure they will do everything they can to make that happen.

[Double Mocha Man]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "Someone has to eat that and it's not going to be us."

 

The USGA and Jack Nicklaus will eat it. They can afford it.

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I think that your sources are giving you answers that you want to hear, or answers that are the company line because said company does not want an equipment roll back, because they will lose a marketing angle.  If they still have tooling from the earliest metal woods, they might not have to re-tool at all.  But of course, an equipment company would be against a roll back because all drivers would become much more standardized, with much less room for innovation.  I think that would be good for the game overall (uniformity of equipment for all players), but it would also hurt their bottom lines.

 

Ultimately, if the companies providing the equipment deem it to be a detriment to their profitability regardless of reasons, you will see what I have already stated.  Bifurcation not really being bifurcation.  You are going against the grain on this one.  The competitors to this website have extensive knowledge these days about production of golf clubs and they were saying the same thing.  They know the margins, they know the processes, they know marketing costs etc.  Yes, they reinforced what I feel is nothing a person seeking truth isn't already going to derive after analyzing the details to a reasonable degree.  If you are firing from the hip based on feelings alone, you will inevitably espouse what you are.

[buckeyefl]

1 hour 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. 

 

Speaking of cherry picking and no context...

Edited July 27, 2022 by buckeyefl

[gvogel]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

 

@gvogel Type in Interview with Chris Voshall on youtube.

 

Opening 20 seconds of the video (from a competing website so I don't think I can post without it being taken down).

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "If you tell us we have to develop a set of clubs for them (points) and a set of clubs for them (points), there's cost there that we will pass on".

 

Interviewer: "Because those guys don't pay you (pointing)."

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "They don't pay us, absolutely." 

 

Interviewer:  "So somebody has to eat that."

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "Someone has to eat that and it's not going to be us."

 

This is an example of what is going to happen and inevitably, it would be better for them if the consumer adopts the "pro gear" and I am sure they will do everything they can to make that happen.

I can remember back 10 years or so when there were companies who were making component heads (like Krank today).  I knew one of the players.  He had a line of about 5 different driver heads, besides a line or two of irons.  His market was small, but he was making money.  He finally got out in order to make more money elsewhere.  The cost of tooling and developing a specific driver head is peanuts compared to the cost of marketing and distribution.  R&D would be minimal for a reduced distance driver because of the reduced size and face specs.  So, no, in the overall scheme of things, bringing out a new driver design for reduced distance parameters would be negligible compared to the overall costs of running the business - particularly for a Titleist or TaylorMade.

[buckeyefl]

55 minutes ago, gvogel said:

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).

 

It sounds like a million dollar idea. Start a company and see how it goes.

[buckeyefl]

22 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I think that your sources are giving you answers that you want to hear, 

 

Pot meet kettle. A big giant 100ft kettle.

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by buckeyefl

[gvogel]

1 minute ago, buckeyefl said:

 

It sounds like a million dollar idea. Start a company and see how it goes.

Of course I won't.  It only makes sense for a company already marketing to a large audience, and producing a large product line.  The cost of developing a couple more sku's, particularly low-tech sku's, would be quite modest.  And they know it, but they won't say so because the whole idea of producing reduced distance equipment for elite players might hurt their bottom lines.  Because of the marketing angle.

[clevited]

10 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I can remember back 10 years or so when there were companies who were making component heads (like Krank today).  I knew one of the players.  He had a line of about 5 different driver heads, besides a line or two of irons.  His market was small, but he was making money.  He finally got out in order to make more money elsewhere.  The cost of tooling and developing a specific driver head is peanuts compared to the cost of marketing and distribution.  R&D would be minimal for a reduced distance driver because of the reduced size and face specs.  So, no, in the overall scheme of things, bringing out a new driver design for reduced distance parameters would be negligible compared to the overall costs of running the business - particularly for a Titleist or TaylorMade.

 

I don't believe that as I am trying to understand the big picture from a manufacturing perspective and I think you are still firing from the hip emotionally.  They will lose money R&Ding a separate line that they will not mass produce and recoup costs.  They will lose marketing strategy.  They will lose sales.  The margins these companies operate with aren't that high so doing something this disruptive can potentially bury a company.  The smaller heads will require different design to get the most out of them vs the larger head.  They will be two completely separate lines much like a 3 wood line is completely separate from the driver line today.  It isn't hard to understand that costs will inevitably go up for the manufacturers.  Where all that cost lies is up for debate as is how much but rest assure, we will see our currently 600 dollar drivers be closer to 1000 dollars in the future and that is not including the inevitable horrendous inflation we are seeing.

 

Edit:  Forgot to include the fact they will be making the "tour line" available for sale as well as their "non tour line".  That is more product potential not selling, and wasted money.  So produce a bunch of tour spec drivers and not sell them, or potentially make a bunch of non tour spec drivers and not sell them instead and be short on the tour spec.  All the while having mixed messages to would be buyers on the usual selling points of distance and forgiveness.  Disruptive, cost inducing needless garbage is what equipment changes would be.

Edited July 27, 2022 by clevited

[MattC555]

1 hour 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. 

 

Actually Rory was hitting drives 316.8 yards on average at the Canadian Open. 

 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.y2022.eon.t032.html

 

Yeah, yeah, fake news, 300 carry is easy, blah, blah, blah. 

[So_Cal]

Just now, MattC555 said:

 

Actually Rory was hitting drives 316.8 yards on average at the Canadian Open. 

 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.y2022.eon.t032.html

 

Yeah, yeah, fake news, 300 carry is easy, blah, blah, blah. 

You are saying the broadcast is lying because they reported multiple 360-370 drives during the final round. 

[clevited]

1 minute ago, So_Cal said:

You are saying the broadcast is lying because they reported multiple 360-370 drives during the final round. 

 

AVERAGE!!!!!!!

I thought you were leaving for a while?

[MattC555]

3 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

You are saying the broadcast is lying because they reported multiple 360-370 drives during the final round. 

What you recall does not jive with the recorded statistics.  You were probably watching a severely downhill hole that isn't used to gather data.  I average 275 yards off the tee.  I hit one 350 yards on the 18th at Kapalua Plantation.  Why?  Cause it rolled 75 yards further than normal due to a giant downward slope....

Edited July 27, 2022 by MattC555

[buckeyefl]

Lots of likes being dished out today. Let freedom ring!

[clevited]

1 minute ago, MattC555 said:

What you recall does not jive with the recorded statistics.  You were probably watching a severely downhill hole that isn't used to gather data.  I average 275 yards off the tee.  I hit one 350 yards on the 18th at Kapalua Plantation.  Why?  Cause it rolled 75 yards further than normal due to a giant downward slope....

 

I realistically average around 3 bills on a good day, but on one course I play, my carry will hit a large hill and roll out to near or over 400 yards, especially if there is any tail breeze at all.  That is 100 yards change from one condition specific hole vs an average hole.  People have to stop looking at big numbers occasionally hit and claiming they are the norm and a reason to completely disrupt the game for nothing more than nostalgia.

[So_Cal]

10 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

What you recall does not jive with the recorded statistics.  You were probably watching a severely downhill hole that isn't used to gather data.  I average 275 yards off the tee.  I hit one 350 yards on the 18th at Kapalua Plantation.  Why?  Cause it rolled 75 yards further than normal due to a giant downward slope....

Nice change of subject.  Tell Faldo to his face that he’s a liar.  

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, So_Cal said:

Nice change of subject.  Tell Faldo to his face that he’s a liar.  

no one's calling him a liar.  i'm sure rory hit a couple out there past 360.

 

but that doesn't change the fact that he averaged 316 off the tee.  

 

tiger hit a 412 yard drive at the british open.  does that mean he averaged 400 for the tournament?

 

this is elementary school stuff.  what are you missing?

[MattC555]

7 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Nice change of subject.  Tell Faldo to his face that he’s a liar.  

 

So, the PGA tour is lying?  I knew it must be fake news.  Your recollection of a Faldo stat is obviously more reliable. 

[gvogel]

32 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I don't believe that as I am trying to understand the big picture from a manufacturing perspective and I think you are still firing from the hip emotionally.  They will lose money R&Ding a separate line that they will not mass produce and recoup costs.  They will lose marketing strategy.  They will lose sales.  The margins these companies operate with aren't that high so doing something this disruptive can potentially bury a company.  The smaller heads will require different design to get the most out of them vs the larger head.  They will be two completely separate lines much like a 3 wood line is completely separate from the driver line today.  It isn't hard to understand that costs will inevitably go up for the manufacturers.  Where all that cost lies is up for debate as is how much but rest assure, we will see our currently 600 dollar drivers be closer to 1000 dollars in the future and that is not including the inevitable horrendous inflation we are seeing.

 

Edit:  Forgot to include the fact they will be making the "tour line" available for sale as well as their "non tour line".  That is more product potential not selling, and wasted money.  So produce a bunch of tour spec drivers and not sell them, or potentially make a bunch of non tour spec drivers and not sell them instead and be short on the tour spec.  All the while having mixed messages to would be buyers on the usual selling points of distance and forgiveness.  Disruptive, cost inducing needless garbage is what equipment changes would be.

You referenced an interview with the Golf Club Engineer.  Of course he is going to say there are development costs that will be extra.  Come back after you have had an exchange with the CFO, and ask him about developing another driver SKU and its cost in the total scheme of things.  Peanuts.

[clevited]

36 minutes ago, gvogel said:

You referenced an interview with the Golf Club Engineer.  Of course he is going to say there are development costs that will be extra.  Come back after you have had an exchange with the CFO, and ask him about developing another driver SKU and its cost in the total scheme of things.  Peanuts.

 

Chris Voshall: Product engineer and marketing manager.  He has his feet in both ponds and regardless of you and my squabble over where the costs are or how much they may be, he speaks the truth.  The cost will be passed down to the consumer.  The reason will be due to the addition of the "pro tour line" of clubs in addition to their standard line of clubs.  Where the money adders are located as a result of that forced change don't ultimately matter.  Do you work at all in the world of manufacturing?  You seem like you lack considerable insight that I find to be common knowledge.

[buckeyefl]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

@gvogel Type in Interview with Chris Voshall on youtube.

 

Opening 20 seconds of the video (from a competing website so I don't think I can post without it being taken down).

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "If you tell us we have to develop a set of clubs for them (points) and a set of clubs for them (points), there's cost there that we will pass on".

 

Interviewer: "Because those guys don't pay you (pointing)."

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "They don't pay us, absolutely." 

 

Interviewer:  "So somebody has to eat that."

 

Mizuno's Chris Voshall: "Someone has to eat that and it's not going to be us."

 

This is an example of what is going to happen and inevitably, it would be better for them if the consumer adopts the "pro gear" and I am sure they will do everything they can to make that happen.

 

A hard dose of reality for those living in rollback fantasy land.

[subrew]

1 hour ago, So_Cal said:

Nice change of subject.  Tell Faldo to his face that he’s a liar.  

 

Driving distance is not a measurement of the single longest drive on any of the holes on that given day.  It isn't even an average of all drives on that day.  They tend to pick one or two holes that don't suffer from uphill/downhill lies in the landing zone, and use just those holes for the driving distance stats.

 

So yes, you saw Rory hit a 360yd drive.  It could have been wind aided.  Downhill lie landing zone aided.  Or "dogleg" aided.  Or all three.

 

But on the holes the PGA actually used to generates those stats for that event/day, he averaged 316.8.