distance debate

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, cardia10 said:

Totally agree here, we have to get out of the color coding for teeing grounds. Scotland was very interesting when playing there. The caddy asked your handicap then asked about how far you hit it off the tee then walked you to the correct tee. I took there advice and had a great time. Some of our group played what would be considered womens teeing distances here but it all came out very equal and fun for the group. We have instilled too much shame for playing the correct set of tees for whatever reason.

 

I had to play the back nine twice for my round the other day due to a junior event using the front nine.  On my second loop around I played the gold tees just to see different lines and angles and work more on my irons.  I am out there to hit a variety of golf shots and have fun.

[Titleist99]

50 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That's nice for you.  I'm glad you have that opportunity.  Most women and some seniors don't. I suppose they should just suck it up so Merion and TOC can still be "relevant" for elite men's tournaments.  They should just take one for the team so that the RBs can once again claim that the game is being played "properly" where there is no bomb and gouge.  It's for the "good" of the game, right? BS and always will be.

Agreed 100%........I call BS as well.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

13 hours ago, clevited said:

 

I can try and restate the basic points of how I view what would be the solution and why keeping in mind I don't believe there is a problem.

 

1) Ball speed nerf is the simplest way to attack this.  That is my firm belief.

2) Currently, there are players on tour that can eclipse 200 mph if they wanted to.

3) There are currently way more players on tour that can do that vs just 10 years ago.

4) Educated assumption is that this trend will continue (all while the max average distance on tour really won't change much due to what I claim to be a natural ceiling created by the golf courses themselves)

5) Long drive pro's with great overall golf games are becoming more and more common.

6) Jamie Sadlowski, and Kyle Berkshire have elite level games and can utilize over 200 mph ball speed off the tee and under very good control.

7) Educated assumption is that Jamies and Kyles will become more and more common over time as more and more athletic people pick up the game (which I speculate is due to money to be made, spread of the game, increased middle class wealth, increased leisure time for honing skills of such a sport, availability of fitting and custom clubs, and the advent of youtube I will include as it gives yet another avenue to make money playing the sport).

8 ) Because of the above, I think the ruling bodies would be daft to not consider the future of elite golf having more and more of these guys with 200+ mph ball speed.

9) 10% (ball speed, not distance) drops back a guy like Kyle who can hit 215+ mph ball speed on the course (and control it) which can net him 360+ yards of carry at sea level (normal flat conditions), to 325+ yards of carry (same normal flat conditions).  This is carry, not total.  In other words, 10% still allows a guy to be "driver wedge" as is so overly touted in here.  You will not notice much difference between a guy like that and how the longest play the game today.

10) 15-20% is usually what I say is the right amount but lets go with 20%.  20% drops Kyle down to roughtly 290+ carry.  Emphasis on carry.  At that 20% nerf, a guy like Kyle would be able to average at a maximum, something similar to what the longest pro's do today which you guys absolutely loathe and say takes skill out of the game because all they do is hit driver wedge.  You will however see a tour average driving distance stay a lot lower, you potentially have a larger gap in "talent" show up again as the need for athletic ability in distance will become even more out of balance than you guys claim it is today.  Guys like Kyle are unlikely to become the norm, but even if they do, that incredibly firm cap will now be in place such that it would take much more of an exponential effort to eclipse it (this assumes the ruling bodies do their jobs and keep tech in check and don't allow some crazy new thing like insanely light driver shafts or something which they already screwed up on if you ask me)

 

In short, I think 200+ mph ball speed elite level golfers will become more and more common and therefore would require a heavy, heavy roll back of ball velocity to combat which I think is the simplest and most sure fire way to address the "problem" rather than ball spin or driver size and COR.  (I of course think this is not needed as courses naturally limit useful distance today thus allowing shorter players to compete with longer players vs what it would be if you nerfed the ball the amount needed).

 

Wall-o-text but I hope that makes my thoughts clear.

 

 

 

Isn't a stricter COR limit a direct nerf to ball speed? Would you opt to do it strictly through the ball? I agree that driver size likely doesn't end up doing much, or at least I wouldn't want to see them roll it back to where it potentially could, though I think a little more uncertainty could be interesting. 

 

I don't doubt the ability of Kyle Berkshire but he's probably closer to me than the Tour. Tour players are insanely good and have built that ability through years of competitive play. I think the more likely future is you continue to see speed ramp up in the younger players to where you see the baseline move closer to 180 BS than 170, or eventually even higher.  I do agree that that trend in distance is likely to continue, the ceiling you speak of comes down to particular courses and ability to gear down when needed and still have tour caliber approach play, but not every course can be Harbour town or Sawgrass. I think the stats, while they do show a trend, don't tell the full story week to week. Look at the Rocket Mortgage, which ended up getting pretty firm. Finau, Pendrith, Cam Young all routinely hit drives much longer than what the stats say they averaged for the week. Most of the long holes week to week are designed with the prevailing wind. If it switches you can adjust shorter if desired (though that might lead some to bolster a claim that it isn't an issue) but the farthest back is the farthest back. Bomb and gouge is what it is and honestly they are incredibly accurate at the distances they hit it and are still trying to hit the fairway. I would still expect most to hit driver a lot more often than they would in the past, but a pro should have to pull something longer than a PW at least some point during a round that isn't a par 3 (yes this is exaggerated but I looked at a particular players round last week and their longest approach was 140). 

 

Honestly, the future you predict seems to necessitate a distance reduction. Some courses put a sort of soft cap but it's definitely not all of them. 

[gvogel]

17 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Isn't a stricter COR limit a direct nerf to ball speed? Would you opt to do it strictly through the ball? I agree that driver size likely doesn't end up doing much, or at least I wouldn't want to see them roll it back to where it potentially could, though I think a little more uncertainty could be interesting. 

 

I don't doubt the ability of Kyle Berkshire but he's probably closer to me than the Tour. Tour players are insanely good and have built that ability through years of competitive play. I think the more likely future is you continue to see speed ramp up in the younger players to where you see the baseline move closer to 180 BS than 170, or eventually even higher.  I do agree that that trend in distance is likely to continue, the ceiling you speak of comes down to particular courses and ability to gear down when needed and still have tour caliber approach play, but not every course can be Harbour town or Sawgrass. I think the stats, while they do show a trend, don't tell the full story week to week. Look at the Rocket Mortgage, which ended up getting pretty firm. Finau, Pendrith, Cam Young all routinely hit drives much longer than what the stats say they averaged for the week. Most of the long holes week to week are designed with the prevailing wind. If it switches you can adjust shorter if desired (though that might lead some to bolster a claim that it isn't an issue) but the farthest back is the farthest back. Bomb and gouge is what it is and honestly they are incredibly accurate at the distances they hit it and are still trying to hit the fairway. I would still expect most to hit driver a lot more often than they would in the past, but a pro should have to pull something longer than a PW at least some point during a round that isn't a par 3 (yes this is exaggerated but I looked at a particular players round last week and their longest approach was 140). 

 

Honestly, the future you predict seems to necessitate a distance reduction. Some courses put a sort of soft cap but it's definitely not all of them. 

I happen to think that driver size should be pared down for elite golfers as a condition of competition, but certainly not for me and Thinking Plus, unless she wants to try a small headed driver from time to time for the challenge.  But as you allude, a small headed driver would lead to more uncertainty, which could lead to players dialing back for best control instead of going all out for distance.

[clevited]

29 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Isn't a stricter COR limit a direct nerf to ball speed? Would you opt to do it strictly through the ball? I agree that driver size likely doesn't end up doing much, or at least I wouldn't want to see them roll it back to where it potentially could, though I think a little more uncertainty could be interesting. 

 

I don't doubt the ability of Kyle Berkshire but he's probably closer to me than the Tour. Tour players are insanely good and have built that ability through years of competitive play. I think the more likely future is you continue to see speed ramp up in the younger players to where you see the baseline move closer to 180 BS than 170, or eventually even higher.  I do agree that that trend in distance is likely to continue, the ceiling you speak of comes down to particular courses and ability to gear down when needed and still have tour caliber approach play, but not every course can be Harbour town or Sawgrass. I think the stats, while they do show a trend, don't tell the full story week to week. Look at the Rocket Mortgage, which ended up getting pretty firm. Finau, Pendrith, Cam Young all routinely hit drives much longer than what the stats say they averaged for the week. Most of the long holes week to week are designed with the prevailing wind. If it switches you can adjust shorter if desired (though that might lead some to bolster a claim that it isn't an issue) but the farthest back is the farthest back. Bomb and gouge is what it is and honestly they are incredibly accurate at the distances they hit it and are still trying to hit the fairway. I would still expect most to hit driver a lot more often than they would in the past, but a pro should have to pull something longer than a PW at least some point during a round that isn't a par 3 (yes this is exaggerated but I looked at a particular players round last week and their longest approach was 140). 

 

Honestly, the future you predict seems to necessitate a distance reduction. Some courses put a sort of soft cap but it's definitely not all of them. 

 

"Honestly, the future you predict seems to necessitate a distance reduction. Some courses put a sort of soft cap but it's definitely not all of them."

 

Hopefully you see where I am coming from here and why I have often said, if they are going to do something, well they better do it right or not at all.  I don't see the point of talking about it and ultimately doing something half arsed which is what I predict will happen.  I hope you see where I am coming from regarding the roll back of distance and the backwards effect it has regarding the value of distance.  It will make it even more valuable than it is today. 

 

I also hope you understand that I believe any bifurcation ultimately will filter down to the average player over time.  There are many reasons I think that will happen.  I am actually very confident it will happen as that is the inevitable thing I see happening given how the entire machine that is the sport of golf works.  

 

This is why I push back so hard on this.  I don't see a solution that doesn't cause immense disruption and a net negative effect for what amounts to a subjective and often nostalgic feeling about how the game is played.  As you can see, you hit it far but you are no tour pro and it isn't because you don't hit it far enough.  Jamie and Kyle are not either yet by anyone's measure, they are amazing golfers.  You need to have top talent in MUCH more than just driving to be at a tour pro level, so I think all this talk about "tests" and lack of "skill" is a bunch of baloney.

 

We never talk about another option that might be the easiest of all options on tour and at any golf course that wants to adopt it.  Disallow the driver for Men.  Courses can require that drivers be left in their vehicles and only 3 wood or less be used.  Purists will say this is horrifying, but in reality, it might be the most simple and least disruptive thing that can be done at the course level.  Modern, long courses will likely allow it.  Older short courses that tend to focus on history of their course and value of architecture (as dumb and out of touch as I think that is) can disallow the driver.  The ball will play the same, the player will be familiar with every other club and not need to buy new balls or new drivers or anything.  The pro tour won't be very disrupted if there are events where driver isn't allowed. I don't advocate for this as I don't think there is a problem, but this would be a low disruption way to address it on a case by case basis and won't require a complete retool of a ball or any clubs whatsoever.  This has been brought up many times but more and more I think this might be the best thing the ruling bodies could do to effectively address the "problem" while also not destroying the game.  If people hate that a course puts that rule in, well they lose business and have to rethink their position.  It will address itself over time and nobody can complain about it anymore.

 

Edit:  I had another thought regarding the no driver option.  Imagine the tour adopting this but maybe saying that a venue should at most, remove driver use for two rounds.  This would require players to have multiple strategies.  To make this an effective long term rule, there would have to be details regarding what a driver is, so some kind of loft and length limit would have to be applied to allowable non driver woods and irons.  

Edited August 3, 2022 by clevited

[smashdn]

29 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Agreed 100%........I call BS as well.

 

What part?  That shorter courses and less maintained turf is cheaper and more sustainable by virtue of using less inputs?  Or that a rollback in distance would result in the former?

 

I can see the argument made that a course wouldn't actually shorten.  I'd also add that it likely wouldn't need to lengthen either.  In accounting terms a cost avoidance though not a cost savings.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I happen to think that driver size should be pared down for elite golfers as a condition of competition, but certainly not for me and Thinking Plus, unless she wants to try a small headed driver from time to time for the challenge.  But as you allude, a small headed driver would lead to more uncertainty, which could lead to players dialing back for best control instead of going all out for distance.

The head size doesn't matter.  I hit 3W just fine.  I have never found the large driver heads all that much easier to hit. 

 

I don't hit driver much at my home club anyway.  Lots of forced or semi-forced layups.  I use driver at most 5 or 6 times from the forward tees.  I can't even use driver on every tee from the white tees.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

9 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

"Honestly, the future you predict seems to necessitate a distance reduction. Some courses put a sort of soft cap but it's definitely not all of them."

 

Hopefully you see where I am coming from here and why I have often said, if they are going to do something, well they better do it right or not at all.  I don't see the point of talking about it and ultimately doing something half arsed which is what I predict will happen.  I hope you see where I am coming from regarding the roll back of distance and the backwards effect it has regarding the value of distance.  It will make it even more valuable than it is today. 

 

I also hope you understand that I believe any bifurcation ultimately will filter down to the average player over time.  There are many reasons I think that will happen.  I am actually very confident it will happen as that is the inevitable thing I see happening given how the entire machine that is the sport of golf works.  

 

This is why I push back so hard on this.  I don't see a solution that doesn't cause immense disruption and a net negative effect for what amounts to a subjective and often nostalgic feeling about how the game is played.  As you can see, you hit it far but you are no tour pro and it isn't because you don't hit it far enough.  Jamie and Kyle are not either yet by anyone's measure, they are amazing golfers.  You need to have top talent in MUCH more than just driving to be at a tour pro level, so I think all this talk about "tests" and lack of "skill" is a bunch of baloney.

 

We never talk about another option that might be the easiest of all options on tour and at any golf course that wants to adopt it.  Disallow the driver for Men.  Courses can require that drivers be left in their vehicles and only 3 wood or less be used.  Purists will say this is horrifying, but in reality, it might be the most simple and least disruptive thing that can be done at the course level.  Modern, long courses will likely allow it.  Older short courses that tend to focus on history of their course and value of architecture (as dumb and out of touch as I think that is) can disallow the driver.  The ball will play the same, the player will be familiar with every other club and not need to buy new balls or new drivers or anything.  The pro tour won't be very disrupted if there are events where driver isn't allowed. I don't advocate for this as I don't think there is a problem, but this would be a low disruption way to address it on a case by case basis and won't require a complete retool of a ball or any clubs whatsoever.  This has been brought up many times but more and more I think this might be the best thing the ruling bodies could do to effectively address the "problem" while also not destroying the game.  If people hate that a course puts that rule in, well they lose business and have to rethink their position.  It will address itself over time and nobody can complain about it anymore.

 

I see where you are coming from I just don't agree with your conclusions. 

 

The USGA might not want to call it bifurcation. I totally understand the potential challenges it would bring for the industry. I totally get calling out the USGA for being weasely with their wording to avoid outright calling it bifurcation. But I also think the status quo has caused quite a bit of disruption and could lead to more going forward. 

 

I'm not on board with contrived solutions as a workaround. 

 

13 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I happen to think that driver size should be pared down for elite golfers as a condition of competition, but certainly not for me and Thinking Plus, unless she wants to try a small headed driver from time to time for the challenge.  But as you allude, a small headed driver would lead to more uncertainty, which could lead to players dialing back for best control instead of going all out for distance.

 

I actually agree with @clevited on this issue. They set it at 460, they would have to roll it back to sub 300 I think to even do much. Would that penalize mishits more? Seems obvious that it would but they just don't miss it by that much and it just feels odd to let it get to this point and then halve the size of the driver allowed. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

I see where you are coming from I just don't agree with your conclusions. 

 

The USGA might not want to call it bifurcation. I totally understand the potential challenges it would bring for the industry. I totally get calling out the USGA for being weasely with their wording to avoid outright calling it bifurcation. But I also think the status quo has caused quite a bit of disruption and could lead to more going forward. 

 

I'm not on board with contrived solutions as a workaround. 

 

 

I actually agree with @clevited on this issue. They set it at 460, they would have to roll it back to sub 300 I think to even do much. Would that penalize mishits more? Seems obvious that it would but they just don't miss it by that much and it just feels odd to let it get to this point and then halve the size of the driver allowed. 

Reducing volume mostly impacts MOI rather than face size.  Mishits will not increase much. Consequence of the mishit will be a little more penal.  Aero will be better, but not much unless specifically designed for.

[gvogel]

43 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The head size doesn't matter.  I hit 3W just fine.  I have never found the large driver heads all that much easier to hit. 

 

I don't hit driver much at my home club anyway.  Lots of forced or semi-forced layups.  I use driver at most 5 or 6 times from the forward tees.  I can't even use driver on every tee from the white tees.

How do you think that you would do with a driver if it had the head size of your 3-wood?  (I bet you wouldn't want the same loft as your 460 cc current driver.  Probably a few degrees more.)

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, gvogel said:

How do you think that you would do with a driver if it had the head size of your 3-wood?  (I bet you wouldn't want the same loft as your 460 cc current driver.  Probably a few degrees more.)

I play 10° or so right now.  No need to change that.  I am not interested in apexing driver at 100'.  That's not all that useful here.  The smaller head might make it harder to depress trajectory and hit a stinger.  Not sure.  I don't try that shot off of the tee with 3W (I actually play a 4W loft at 3W length - needed the elevation off the turf).

[clevited]

53 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

I see where you are coming from I just don't agree with your conclusions. 

 

The USGA might not want to call it bifurcation. I totally understand the potential challenges it would bring for the industry. I totally get calling out the USGA for being weasely with their wording to avoid outright calling it bifurcation. But I also think the status quo has caused quite a bit of disruption and could lead to more going forward. 

 

I'm not on board with contrived solutions as a workaround. 

 

 

I actually agree with @clevited on this issue. They set it at 460, they would have to roll it back to sub 300 I think to even do much. Would that penalize mishits more? Seems obvious that it would but they just don't miss it by that much and it just feels odd to let it get to this point and then halve the size of the driver allowed. 

 

Hey, nice to have some common ground with someone on the other side of the aisle.

 

[gvogel]

56 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

"Honestly, the future you predict seems to necessitate a distance reduction. Some courses put a sort of soft cap but it's definitely not all of them."

 

Hopefully you see where I am coming from here and why I have often said, if they are going to do something, well they better do it right or not at all.  I don't see the point of talking about it and ultimately doing something half arsed which is what I predict will happen.  I hope you see where I am coming from regarding the roll back of distance and the backwards effect it has regarding the value of distance.  It will make it even more valuable than it is today. 

 

I also hope you understand that I believe any bifurcation ultimately will filter down to the average player over time.  There are many reasons I think that will happen.  I am actually very confident it will happen as that is the inevitable thing I see happening given how the entire machine that is the sport of golf works.  

 

This is why I push back so hard on this.  I don't see a solution that doesn't cause immense disruption and a net negative effect for what amounts to a subjective and often nostalgic feeling about how the game is played.  As you can see, you hit it far but you are no tour pro and it isn't because you don't hit it far enough.  Jamie and Kyle are not either yet by anyone's measure, they are amazing golfers.  You need to have top talent in MUCH more than just driving to be at a tour pro level, so I think all this talk about "tests" and lack of "skill" is a bunch of baloney.

 

We never talk about another option that might be the easiest of all options on tour and at any golf course that wants to adopt it.  Disallow the driver for Men.  Courses can require that drivers be left in their vehicles and only 3 wood or less be used.  Purists will say this is horrifying, but in reality, it might be the most simple and least disruptive thing that can be done at the course level.  Modern, long courses will likely allow it.  Older short courses that tend to focus on history of their course and value of architecture (as dumb and out of touch as I think that is) can disallow the driver.  The ball will play the same, the player will be familiar with every other club and not need to buy new balls or new drivers or anything.  The pro tour won't be very disrupted if there are events where driver isn't allowed. I don't advocate for this as I don't think there is a problem, but this would be a low disruption way to address it on a case by case basis and won't require a complete retool of a ball or any clubs whatsoever.  This has been brought up many times but more and more I think this might be the best thing the ruling bodies could do to effectively address the "problem" while also not destroying the game.  If people hate that a course puts that rule in, well they lose business and have to rethink their position.  It will address itself over time and nobody can complain about it anymore.

 

Edit:  I had another thought regarding the no driver option.  Imagine the tour adopting this but maybe saying that a venue should at most, remove driver use for two rounds.  This would require players to have multiple strategies.  To make this an effective long term rule, there would have to be details regarding what a driver is, so some kind of loft and length limit would have to be applied to allowable non driver woods and irons.  

I could easily sign on to the disallowed driver option (3-wood option), but I would go further an not specify minimum loft.

 

Ping's largest 3-wood at the moment is the Ping Max, a 176 cc head with a loft of 14.5*, plus or minus 1.5*.  So that can be tuned to 13*.  Heck, I would allow any loft, but I doubt that a 176 cc head would be practical at under 10*.  And I also doubt that you would find elite players playing a 176 cc head with a shaft of over 44".  Ping also made a Ping Rapture 3-wood at 219 cc and 13* loft, 43-1/2" shaft.  I actually have one of those and use it with my hickory spoon and irons from time to time.  I guess that would be the upper limit in terms of volume that I would suggest for your 3-wood only option.

 

Fine option, and we can discuss the actual specs.

[gvogel]

8 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I play 10° or so right now.  No need to change that.  I am not interested in apexing driver at 100'.  That's not all that useful here.  The smaller head might make it harder to depress trajectory and hit a stinger.  Not sure.  I don't try that shot off of the tee with 3W (I actually play a 4W loft at 3W length - needed the elevation off the turf).

I think that you would find it very difficult to play a 10* loft in a club head the size of your 4-wood.  (I too play a 4-wood with a 3-wood length shaft.) 

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I think that you would find it very difficult to play a 10* loft in a club head the size of your 4-wood.  (I too play a 4-wood with a 3-wood length shaft.) 

 

Get a strong 13.5* 3 wood and loft it down more and see how you get on.  I have one of those and have messed around with lofting it down.  I don't find it to be abnormally difficult to hit straight.  No more than it is at 13.5.  I really don't think a good player or a pro will struggle with it or hit it offline enough to make a noticeable difference. 

 

Longer shaft would be the only thing I haven't tried but I really don't think it will do much to someone with a repeatable swing, they just don't deviate much swing to swing.

 

Edit:  If only Callaway didn't change their fairway woods to no longer share hosels styles with their drivers, I could try the driver length fairway wood at I think 11.5*.

Edited August 3, 2022 by clevited

[subrew]

I had always wished the TXG guys would do some experiments with fairway wood driver replacements.  For a couple years they were doing their driver and fairway wood shootouts, with Matty hitting near PGAT length bombs.  And I know Ian tends to play a TM Rocket 3, which I think is 13*, and he would often turn it down from there.  But they were still playing them like a fairway wood, judging more on workability and descent angle than just pure length.

 

It would be fun to see a modern fairway wood dialed in as a driver replacement.  And have a really good player hit 20+ shots with it compared to driver.  How much diff in length?  But also how much diff is the shot dispersion.

 

It's also interesting to see how different head shapes can be on fairways.  The triple diamond Callaways are pretty crazy looking, with a taller face, rounded bottom.  Versus a Ping G425 MAX with a shallow face that is long toe to heal and long for and aft. 

 

Building a tour specific less than 200cc head might not prove that difficult, as some of the OEM already build tour specific stuff now.    

[Simpsonia]

I still don't get this absolute obsession with driver club size. We've been through this ad nauseum, the ball is the single largest contributor to any distance gains over the last 30 years, with the driver face material being a distant second, club head size being so far in the rearview mirror it doesn't even warrant more than 1 or 2%.

 

The driver size does increase some MOI, but tour pros almost always elect to play weights forward to offset and remove those MOI gains anyways so they can reduce their spin. So if the rollbackers agree that given how consistent tour pros are with their 176cc 3W, and the clubhead size isn't doing a whole lot for them anyways as far as distance/MOI goes, why is there this absolute obsession with reversing 20+ years of use. s***, the current world #1, Scottie Scheffler, has probably literally never played with a driver under 460cc. Reducing club volume will have a much much larger impact on forgiveness. Since tour pros do have mishits, it will affect them. However, the degree at which it will affect them is so far below how it would negatively impact the average amateur, is it really worth it? And, as a reminder, tour pros often play their 3W off the tee and go after it just as hard as with the driver. Any theoretical "reigning a tour pro in, and force them to swing slower" is just not going to happen as proven by their 3Ws. 

 

With such a disproportionate effect on amateurs vs pros, and bifurcation of that level being extremely unlikely, I feel like this is just more shi**y gatekeeping to keep the perceived rabble out of golf. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Simpsonia

[buckeyefl]

On 8/3/2022 at 11:04 AM, gvogel said:

I happen to think that driver size should be pared down for elite golfers as a condition of competition, but certainly not for me and Thinking Plus, unless she wants to try a small headed driver from time to time for the challenge.  But as you allude, a small headed driver would lead to more uncertainty, which could lead to players dialing back for best control instead of going all out for distance.

 

Well of course you do.

 

 

On 8/3/2022 at 12:20 PM, gvogel said:

I think that you would find it very difficult to play a 10* loft in a club head the size of your 4-wood.  (I too play a 4-wood with a 3-wood length shaft.) 

 

Why? People did it for generations. Some people would struggle, better golfers would adjust and STILL be hitting it farther than you like. You can see it in action every week on your television when pros tee of with their strong 3-woods..

[Titleist99]

15 hours ago, buckeyefl said:

 

Well of course you do.

 

 

 

Why? People did it for generations. Some people would struggle, better golfers would adjust and STILL be hitting it farther than you like. You can see it in action every week on your television when pros tee of with their strong 3-woods..

Stenson would be back on the regular Tour hitting his strong three wood  again ......no change necessary for him. I think that he drives it 300 yards with it....

[smashdn]

308 yard drive last night with a Hogan persimmon driver and Titleist Tour Soft.  High draw and some ground draw too.

 

If something needs dampening it is the ball.

[buckeyefl]

11 minutes ago, smashdn said:

308 yard drive last night with a Hogan persimmon driver and Titleist Tour Soft.  High draw and some ground draw too.

 

If something needs dampening it is the ball.

 

But the newer balls don't curve. I call sorcery!

[buckeyefl]

On 2/21/2022 at 11:18 AM, MtlJeff said:

Still waiting for them to provide specifics on the long term challenges the game faces. Other than Mike Davis and his cronies having to spend thousands a year on broken monocles , or stamps to send love letters to Jack Nicklaus about simpler times

 

99.9% of golfers are fine playing 6500yd courses.

 

The same people complaining about the ball are often the designers of 7500yd resort courses where tumbleweeds roam the back tees LOL. Create a problem to complain about i guess.

 

 

Just reposting this truth bomb.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, buckeyefl said:

 

 

Just reposting this truth bomb.

 

It's all in the report. Choose to disagree with them sure but it gets fairly specific. 

 

 

[farmer]

Whatever the RB's have in mind, they have to have the OEM's support.  The RB's cannot tell the OEM's that the largest driver size will now be 300cc.  Lawsuits would abound, and the club would not be marketable.  

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, buckeyefl said:

 

But the newer balls don't curve. I call sorcery!

 

In the hands of someone who barely has control over his swing they do.  That drive was the exception not the rule.  Had several low scudders too.  Those are club dependent I think.  My misses with the persimmon driver tend to curve way more than with my 913.

[oikos1]

Just came across this in the JT popular thread.  And here we have been told all along by the roll it backers that the ball doesn't curve anymore.  No one can move it or needs to move it.  And then you see this:

 

 

 

[buckeyefl]

9 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Just came across this in the JT popular thread.  And here we have been told all along by the roll it backers that the ball doesn't curve anymore.  No one can move it or needs to move it.  And then you see this:

 

 

 

 

 

Its amazing how shot tracer has killed the myth that tour players don't move the ball and just play their particular shot shape..

Edited August 6, 2022 by buckeyefl

[Boney]

On 8/2/2022 at 5:16 PM, Double Mocha Man said:

let the OEM's go wild for the amateurs, unleashing their R & D departments, adding 50 yards to our drives and a much tighter dispersion to our irons.

That would be fun, and probably good for the golf business. And I'd love to see the pros play courses like Merion, Pebble Beach, or Harbour Town with steel shafts, persimmons, and blades. They'd do just fine, but you'd see more strategy and a wider range of scores, with the best ball-strikers and creative scramblers coming to the top more often.

[oikos1]

4 hours ago, Boney said:

but you'd see more strategy and a wider range of scores, with the best ball-strikers and creative scramblers coming to the top more often.

You mean like J. Kim's win at the Wyndham 2 days ago, in 2022, who has a reported ball speed around 165 and is considered one of the better ball strikers.

[smashdn]

On 8/5/2022 at 4:05 PM, buckeyefl said:

 

 

Its amazing how shot tracer has killed the myth that tour players don't move the ball and just play their particular shot shape..

 

Why do so many swing instructors say that then?