distance debate

[trilerian]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

Do you not play public courses?  Never had to wait for guys to get out of your fairway while they are playing an adjacent hole?  I have been the beneficiary and the cause before.

 

That's the downside to hitting it a long way.  If it goes wayward it has the potential to go way offline.

 

Yep, I play public courses about 5 times a week.  And you don't have to hit it long to be crooked.  Yes, I occasionally have to wait on people in my fairway, yes others have had to wait on me.  Public courses are full of the average male golfers who hit the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards to the right, and ya'll want to make it harder for them. lol. 

 

 

 

 

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, So_Cal said:

She is a world class player and hit a small headed wood off the last tee under pressure.  Something that detractors of MilesGiles say is no problem.  Well it proved more difficult than the large headed club, which she hadn’t missed all day.  Banana in the bunker.  Bogey.  Loss.  Miles won that argument yesterday. 
 

Miles 1

Distance Deniers 0

 

To summarize your argument: "Outliers don't exist, my anecdote trumps everything else". 

[golfer07840]

15 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

Yep, I play public courses about 5 times a week.  And you don't have to hit it long to be crooked.  Yes, I occasionally have to wait on people in my fairway, yes others have had to wait on me.  Public courses are full of the average male golfers who hit the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards to the right, and ya'll want to make it harder for them. lol. 

 

 

 

 

This notion that slow play on public courses is because people are hitting it too far is absolute poppyc0ck. 

 

Meanwhile the tips at all the public courses I play at, sit there, with near perfect conditions because NOBODY uses them. 

 

It's almost like the rollbackers live in another dimension in a multiverse. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

17 hours ago, clevited said:

 

You may be downplaying how much more skill you have than your buddy to have kept the ball in play as well as you do while hitting it 50 yards past him.

I never mentioned skill but yes I am a much better golfer than he is. Most better players hit the ball farther and straighter, there was a thread with a graphic showing distance between 5 caps and tour pros and the difference is stark. So how unfair is it really? Certainly not enough to trade off hitting it shorter unless the hole demands it. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

5 minutes ago, golfer07840 said:

This notion that slow play on public courses is because people are hitting it too far is absolute poppyc0ck. 

 

Meanwhile the tips at all the public courses I play at, sit there, with near perfect conditions because NOBODY uses them. 

 

It's almost like the rollbackers live in another dimension in a multiverse. 

 

It's almost like these points have been conceded throughout the thread (other than maybe the slow play impacts which are dubious at best) and you have chosen to ignore that. 

 

22 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

Yep, I play public courses about 5 times a week.  And you don't have to hit it long to be crooked.  Yes, I occasionally have to wait on people in my fairway, yes others have had to wait on me.  Public courses are full of the average male golfers who hit the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards to the right, and ya'll want to make it harder for them. lol. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think most actually don't but have been told approaches to avoid it won't work for various reasons. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I never mentioned skill but yes I am a much better golfer than he is. Most better players hit the ball farther and straighter, there was a thread with a graphic showing distance between 5 caps and tour pros and the difference is stark. So how unfair is it really? Certainly not enough to trade off hitting it shorter unless the hole demands it. 

 

Yeah the whole point in mentioning the unfairness thing was not to complain about it, but to point out that there is natural unfairness and you have to be pretty skilled to hit the ball far and utilize it well on the course.  It gets harder and harder to control the harder you swing.  You have to be more and more perfect with your club delivery and stand to be more offline than your shorter peers should you get it even a fraction as wrong as they often get it.  

 

No need to add unnatural unfairness by making a ball lighter and or bigger.  A roughly equal ball speed nerf across the board would be a fair way to roll back distance.  One I don't want, but fair.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, trilerian said:

 

Yep, I play public courses about 5 times a week.  And you don't have to hit it long to be crooked.  Yes, I occasionally have to wait on people in my fairway, yes others have had to wait on me.  Public courses are full of the average male golfers who hit the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards to the right, and ya'll want to make it harder for them. lol. 

 

No.  More challenging for professionals and other elite players as a means to showcase their skill and keep the historic courses relevant in regards to distance.  That is the idea.  The how to do that that has been proposed is where you may find it being made harder for everyone.  I personally don't care if they bifurcate and create a tournament spec ball or whatever you want to call it.  No impact on "average" players that way.  I also tend to think the potential impact to amateurs is overstated here.  My contention is if they aren't swinging hard enough or consistently enough to get the benefit of the current bump in ball technology, they probably will not encounter a noticeable dip if it were deemed a requirement to roll back across the board.

 

My experience has been that those average guys hitting the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards wayward aren't consistent enough to be fit to a ball to optimize much of anything.

[Nard_S]

10 hours ago, trilerian said:

You sound like you let a lot of stuff that doesn’t really matter affect you.

The fact Golf has gone the way of Tennis mean zero to me. The power serve brought on by "the tech" killed a great sport and emptied courts across the country. Always thought that's where golf might end up but I now appreciate it's already happened. The game is circling the drain, big corporate money is still committed but the sun has set on what will be seen as a golden era. Pro game will become a glorified dog race to wager on and little more. 

[trilerian]

21 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

The fact Golf has gone the way of Tennis mean zero to me. The power serve brought on by "the tech" killed a great sport and emptied courts across the country. Always thought that's where golf might end up but I now appreciate it's already happened. The game is circling the drain, big corporate money is still committed but the sun has set on what will be seen as a golden era. Pro game will become a glorified dog race to wager on and little more. 

 

Thanks for your opinion.  I happen to think the golden era of golf is happening right now.  And as to tennis, I've been playing tennis for 30 years.  Started playing in the days of Agassi and Sampras, it's been a power serve game since I started playing.  

In my bag I have a couple of the BLX 6.1 Tours that Federer used for a bit.  Man those are demanding racquets, heavy and small heads.  I much prefer my Babolat Aero's now. 

[So_Cal]

2 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Until you realize she probably would have done the same with driver.  Was likely a face closure issue rather than strike.  Nerves can't be fixed by a 460 club head, a bad swing is a bad swing and that same swing would likely have been much worse with a driver. 

 

Edit:  Then you also have to ask, why did she use a fairway wood (I am guessing) if it is so much harder to hit?  Could it be driver wasn't the play and or she was more confident in the supposedly harder to hit fairway wood?  You logic isn't so logical I don't think.  

I’m not arguing with you.  I tend to agree with Miles though regarding head size / forgiveness under pressure down the stretch.  I used to have a 80cc ish slotline driver.  Man that thing was tough to hit solid. 

[trilerian]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

No.  More challenging for professionals and other elite players as a means to showcase their skill and keep the historic courses relevant in regards to distance.  That is the idea.  The how to do that that has been proposed is where you may find it being made harder for everyone.  I personally don't care if they bifurcate and create a tournament spec ball or whatever you want to call it.  No impact on "average" players that way.  I also tend to think the potential impact to amateurs is overstated here.  My contention is if they aren't swinging hard enough or consistently enough to get the benefit of the current bump in ball technology, they probably will not encounter a noticeable dip if it were deemed a requirement to roll back across the board.

 

My experience has been that those average guys hitting the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards wayward aren't consistent enough to be fit to a ball to optimize much of anything.

 

Just want to say that your post is reasonable.  And if they created a spec ball for specific tournaments on historical courses, sure.  I don't put the premium you do on hitting long irons into a green, but to each their own.  As long as some tournaments still allowed modern golf balls, that's fine.  I'll just watch those.  

 

But could you expand on the bolded in the quote?  What do you think the swing speed would be required to notice a drop in performance of dialed back golf ball?  Also, my assumption is the golf ball will have to be softer, less spin.  This will make greens harder to hold as well.  I know I can tell a difference in green holding from a ProV1 to a Tourspeed.  I can't tell a distance change in them, but the ProV1 holds better that is for sure.  

 

But in the end, I feel that any loss of distance for the amateur is unacceptable.  And I don't think it is possible to make any change to professional golf without it eventually affecting amateurs.  

 

[PaulCar65]

5 hours ago, So_Cal said:

She is a world class player and hit a small headed wood off the last tee under pressure.  Something that detractors of MilesGiles say is no problem.  Well it proved more difficult than the large headed club, which she hadn’t missed all day.  Banana in the bunker.  Bogey.  Loss.  Miles won that argument yesterday. 
 

Miles 1

Distance Deniers 0

Actually she hit her 2nd shot into the bunker, She hit 3 wood off the tee just over the bunker.

[smashdn]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

No.  More challenging for professionals and other elite players as a means to showcase their skill and keep the historic courses relevant in regards to distance.  That is the idea.  The how to do that that has been proposed is where you may find it being made harder for everyone.  I personally don't care if they bifurcate and create a tournament spec ball or whatever you want to call it.  No impact on "average" players that way.  I also tend to think the potential impact to amateurs is overstated here.  My contention is if they aren't swinging hard enough or consistently enough to get the benefit of the current bump in ball technology, they probably will not encounter a noticeable dip if it were deemed a requirement to roll back across the board.

 

My experience has been that those average guys hitting the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards wayward aren't consistent enough to be fit to a ball to optimize much of anything.

 

30 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

Just want to say that your post is reasonable.  And if they created a spec ball for specific tournaments on historical courses, sure.  I don't put the premium you do on hitting long irons into a green, but to each their own.  As long as some tournaments still allowed modern golf balls, that's fine.  I'll just watch those.  

 

But could you expand on the bolded in the quote?  What do you think the swing speed would be required to notice a drop in performance of dialed back golf ball?  Also, my assumption is the golf ball will have to be softer, less spin.  This will make greens harder to hold as well.  I know I can tell a difference in green holding from a ProV1 to a Tourspeed.  I can't tell a distance change in them, but the ProV1 holds better that is for sure.  

 

But in the end, I feel that any loss of distance for the amateur is unacceptable.  And I don't think it is possible to make any change to professional golf without it eventually affecting amateurs.  

 

 

I think, and this is only opinion based upon experience and observation as well as reading and taking at face value (to an extent) what the equipment companies tell me.  Also, this is more than just the ball at play, it is the whole system, shaft, club, and ball, driven by the engine, the golfer.  So the equipment companies lead me to believe that they have balls that are optimized for slower swinging players and balls optimized for "tour speed" swinging players.  I am also lead to believe that you need to swing a certain speed in order to "unlock" or "activate" the trampoline effect of the clubface.  Additionally, the harder you hit the ball the more the entire clubhead deforms and via physics you lose some of your energy being imparted to the ball via outward energies wasted or lost through deformation, sound, vibration, etc.

 

I can't really tell you about the need for a softer ball.  I am learning that those compression numbers (90, 75, 50, etc.) are somewhat subjective and vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.  Also, for the longest time if you wanted "tour distance" the amateur player played a very harsh and hard feeling ball (a "rock flite").  Now it seems to be en vogue for an amateur to play a much softer ball that is more "compatible" with their swing speed.  All that to say, I don't freakin' know which type of ball a slower swing speed player should play.

 

I know that, supposedly, that the benefit to the multi-layer ball is that different layers are "activated" at different swing speeds and that is supposed to be a benefit for "full speed" shots as well as pitching and chipping.

 

To answer your question regarding swing speed, I have no idea the exact speed.  I would suspect maybe around 80 mph?  That seems to be what i would imagine an "average" slower swing speed would be.  That's just a spit ball though.

 

---

 

Regarding that tourspeed ball.  I haven't used that ball but did use the Tour Soft as my local course had no Chrome Softs.  I didn't care for the Tour Soft and it did not perform as well as the chrome soft for me.  the tourspeed is supposed to have a urethane cover though.  Maybe a different formulation than a ProV1 though?  The tour soft, per the titleist website, does not have a urethane cover.

 

A ball that I got a noticeable difference in driver distance with was the AVX.  I added 15 yards or so with just a switch to that ball.  It does not spin as much with irons and wedges though as does the ProV1.  It feels a little firmer to me both off the long clubs and the putter.  For the extra distance I am happy to give up the wedge spin.  I am just not ripping balls back, though I really never did.  From that standpoint it was not much of a change to me.  The Chrome Soft was even softer and spun more but also spun more with the driver and was not quite as long as the AVX for me.  But significantly cheaper.  I don't buy the AVX at full till price.  I find the high quality ones from the ball hawks and buy 75-100 at a time when they are available.

 

I don't mind the Srixon tour ball or the TM TP5X ball.  I used to really like the Bridgestone ball but they got to be even harder to find and just as expensive as a ProV.

[farmer]

On 8/11/2022 at 3:52 PM, mahonie said:

My point is that most courses these days are actually par 66/67 and there is no such thing as a par 5 for pros. Bryson was right when he called Augusta a par 68...for the pros it is. I have no issue with that as long as it is recognised as a par 68 and people stop drooling when so and so shot 64...its only 4 under par (!)...and a +6 handicap Pro is actually shooting 2 over his handicap. Semantics I know, but the modern game is all about distance...pars have to be brought in line so that average Joe is not hoodwinked into thinking that it us the be all and end all.

Bryson shot 76-80 this year at the Masters.  +1 on 13, +2 on 15, but he parred 8 both days.  Must be a hard par 68.

OT, but Smash mentioned them.  I just found out that Bradford pears are an invasive species and considered a blight on the environment.

[farmer]

18 hours ago, So_Cal said:

Uphill tee shot, #13.  Short iron into par 5.  Not going to spend time arguing.  Just saying shot values are shot with modern tech 

According to the scorecard, #13 is a par 4, and the ball ran forever, if it's the hole I'm thinking about.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by farmer
correction

[mahonie]

4 minutes ago, farmer said:

Bryson shot 76-80 this year at the Masters.  +1 on 13, +2 on 15, but he parred 8 both days.  Must be a hard par 68.

OT, but Smash mentioned them.  I just found out that Bradford pears are an invasive species and considered a blight on the environment.

Sorry you feel that way...just wanted to provide a view from outside...should have known better.

 

I'll leave you with something to ponder. Distance is a US disease that is slowly killing the game in the interest of the dollar...you won't see it but its pretty obvious. PGA Tour...Titleist...well any of the OEMs... are in each others pockets to some extent or other. If the PGA Tour tried to sell skill as the real deal for playing good golf, the likes of Titleist, Callaway, etc. would all be dead in the water...they can't sell skill...only distance.

 

Selling distance is easy...OEMs can sell balls, oversize drivers and make a packet...PGA Tour courses are pretty much set up to sell distance. PGA Tour coverage in the UK is primarily sponsored by Titleist...it has become a vicious circle.

 

American golf is not half the game it could and should be and it will become isolated. A split in the game is coming...there will be the PGA Tour and the 'rest of the world tour.' The alliance with the European Tour and the re-branding to DP World Tour was a last desperate throw of the dice to maintain the status quo. Watch this space.

[farmer]

A view from outside what?  I don't know what point you're trying to make, but every player on every tour uses the same stuff.  Titleist has been a factor since 1932.  Cobra since '73, Callaway since '82.  Wilson been around forever.  Clubs are easier to play than back in the '60s, balls are incomparably better, I just don't see a problem.  Length is a factor, improved greens are a factor, groomed fairways play a part, I just watched a tiny girl play a wonderful sand shot, so skill is still more dominate than any single factor.

[Chunkitgood]

12 hours ago, trilerian said:

 

Yep, I play public courses about 5 times a week.  And you don't have to hit it long to be crooked.  Yes, I occasionally have to wait on people in my fairway, yes others have had to wait on me.  Public courses are full of the average male golfers who hit the ball 190 yards forward and 100 yards to the right, and ya'll want to make it harder for them. lol. 

 

 

 

 

The game of those average male golfers is pretty good evidence of what I have always argued:  any equipment advances (such as they are) benefit elite golfers, and whatever rule change that might be made to rein in the elites will not affect the vast majority in any significant way.  It just doesn’t matter if they hit their drives 190 yards or 195, they don’t have the speed/contact skills necessary to benefit from modern balls, and they slice so badly MOI is irrelevant.

 

Two groups seem to be upset with possible changes: those who do have those skills and those whose ego leads them to think they have them.

 

It is the tendency of the second group to go for every possible hole a stoke under regulation is what causes the delays I see as they wait on the tee for the fairway to clear of the guys who hit their drives 260 and are waiting for the green 250 yards ahead of them to clear.

[So_Cal]

8 hours ago, PaulCar65 said:

Actually she hit her 2nd shot into the bunker, She hit 3 wood off the tee just over the bunker.

Good catch. I’m getting old. 😂.  It was still a banana slice on the first and second shot that she hadn’t done with a large headed club.  Miles’ point still stands.  Only way we would know for sure is a tourney with 120cc drivers.  I’m not in favor of rolling back the head size anyway.  

[smashdn]

Stumbled upon this dude.  I will admit that I cannot do quickly in my head the conversion from meters to yards but do know that I meter is slightly longer than a yard.  Somewhere back we were discussing average swingspeeds.  I would say this cat is average or if not average I think we would agree certainly not tour speed.  Unless he did something fishy with the balls it look like the ball being used was consistent.

 

I don't know my point or that I am even trying to make one.  Just food for thought.

 

 

[gvogel]

On 8/12/2022 at 9:48 PM, So_Cal said:

Good catch. I’m getting old. 😂.  It was still a banana slice on the first and second shot that she hadn’t done with a large headed club.  Miles’ point still stands.  Only way we would know for sure is a tourney with 120cc drivers.  I’m not in favor of rolling back the head size anyway.  

Someone mentioned an 80 cc driver (a Tour Striker driver? 😉 ), and now a 120 cc driver.  Way impossible and didn't exist.  The first TaylorMade Pittsburgh Persimmon was 151cc from what I have read, and that was actually smaller than a persimmon driver.  However, because it was hollow, it actually might have had more MOI, and probably a little hotter face.  And consistency across the face.

 

If the new Ping G25 Fairway Max fairway wood is 176 cc, surely the old wooden driver heads were larger.

[clevited]

23 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Stumbled upon this dude.  I will admit that I cannot do quickly in my head the conversion from meters to yards but do know that I meter is slightly longer than a yard.  Somewhere back we were discussing average swingspeeds.  I would say this cat is average or if not average I think we would agree certainly not tour speed.  Unless he did something fishy with the balls it look like the ball being used was consistent.

 

I don't know my point or that I am even trying to make one.  Just food for thought.

 

 

 

Seen it.  Nothing revolutionary.  Persimmon and laminated drivers of the 43 inch or so nature are roughly 10 mph ball speed less than a typical off the shelf driver of today which is what you can observe in the video.  That is due to lower COR, shorter shaft, and heavier shaft.  Then you have spin.  You can find wooden drivers that don't spin like the one he had.  In my experience, a lot of wooden drivers were pretty high loft, like 11-13 degrees.  Then you have the shafts.  Often they were very whippy and you have to try pretty hard to find one that isn't. 

 

In other words, yes, a typical off the shelf wooden driver will be significantly shorter than a typical modern off the shelf driver. You could/can however, find a lower lofted wooden driver that reduces the spin significantly.  You yourself can also impart less spin with how you swing, and you can also find a stiffer steel shaft than what was typically offered off the shelf.  In other words, you can do quite a bit better than what this guy showed from my experience.  I would like to see someone take a wooden driver, fit as well as possible to their swing given the tech of the time and compare it to a modern driver also fit as well as possible and compare.  Ideally, they would also be the same length.

[smashdn]

I can understand the desire to see them the same length as it would be one less variable at play but also don't think it really necessary.  It would be like comparing a modern race car to one from the 60's but insisting they have the same brakes.

 

Being able to use the longer shaft in a modern driver is part of the draw of the whole system being more efficient.  The lighter head and lighter, better shaft allows you to have it be longer and still sufficiently controllable.

 

Like I said in what I posted.  I didn't really have a point nor was trying to make a point one way or the other.  Just showing an example of what I thought to be a pretty decent head-to-head comparison, albeit not scientific.

 

I played with a fellow the other day that was using a "mini-driver" which I had not seen in person before.  He explained it was still 10.5* in loft but was, to my eye, noticeably smaller.  I do not know if the shaft was typical length or shorter.  If I were guessing I would say maybe 220cc.  Similar in look to a Callaway Big Bertha Steelhead driver from back in the 90's.  

 

I don't get behind the "shrink the driver head" plan of attack.  All of us of a certain age used smaller drivers through the years.  I don't think that change would have the desired affect and especially not at the level of golfer we are concerned about.

[betarhoalphadelta]

14 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I don't get behind the "shrink the driver head" plan of attack.  All of us of a certain age used smaller drivers through the years.  I don't think that change would have the desired affect and especially not at the level of golfer we are concerned about.

 

I also don't think the "shrink the driver head" makes sense. After all, some of these guys on tour are hitting 260y blade 3 irons and 300y+ 3 woods. Reducing the driver head isn't going to change that there's something else at play making all these distances go up. 

[clevited]

31 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I also don't think the "shrink the driver head" makes sense. After all, some of these guys on tour are hitting 260y blade 3 irons and 300y+ 3 woods. Reducing the driver head isn't going to change that there's something else at play making all these distances go up. 

 

I think it is mostly a change in teaching as well as more athletic people picking up the game and playing at a high level.  Kids are growing up being taught to swing fast first, learn to control it later. It wasn't that long ago where swinging under control at all points while learning the game was the standard teaching model.  The old guard has slowly been replaced by the next generation that grew up with Tiger.  You also have very athletic people that might not have top talent for their chosen sport of hockey, baseball, or football, but learn to play golf at a high level.  They will naturally have speed in excess of your average golfer immediately upon adoption of the game and they can obtain an even higher ceiling speed wise while working on their game. 

 

Modern equipment has facilitated this better and better as well since roughly 20 years ago.  Launch monitors came into existence, and fitting became a bigger and bigger thing.  Adjustable drivers were born and clubs of various lofts and shaft profiles allowed people to control their natural swings as well as possible, mostly through mitigation of spin.  

[buckeyefl]

On 8/12/2022 at 6:14 PM, farmer said:

According to the scorecard, #13 is a par 4, and the ball ran forever, if it's the hole I'm thinking about.

 

Logic wont work. Outliers with no context are his specialty.

[buckeyefl]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

Someone mentioned an 80 cc driver (a Tour Striker driver? 😉 ), and now a 120 cc driver.  Way impossible and didn't exist.  The first TaylorMade Pittsburgh Persimmon was 151cc from what I have read, and that was actually smaller than a persimmon driver.  However, because it was hollow, it actually might have had more MOI, and probably a little hotter face.  And consistency across the face.

 

If the new Ping G25 Fairway Max fairway wood is 176 cc, surely the old wooden driver heads were larger.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, buckeyefl said:

 

 

That's quite the collection of persimmon heads.  You've got enough kindling there to start one good fire in your fireplace.  😁

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Saw a video where they took the Momentus bomb it training driver out and had KFT players hit it. Apparently the head is 37CCs and Brandon Mathews hit 180 ball speed with it. Though there were some ugly shots. I don’t know what real point I’m making other than reiterating you have to slow the ball and maybe face down, shrinking the head isn’t going to do much.

Edited August 16, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[clevited]

31 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Saw a video where they took the Momentus bomb it training driver out and had KFT players hit it. Apparently the head is 37CCs and Brandon Mathews hit 180 ball speed with it. Though there were some ugly shots. I don’t know what real point I’m making other than reiterating you have to slow the ball and maybe face down, shrinking the head isn’t going to do much.

 

Again some common ground.  I can disagree with you about any need to lower distance but at least we can maybe agree on what are and are not likely solutions to fix the "problem".  Lowering ball speed really is the simplest way I think.  Multiple ways to effectively do that but I would just say change the ball.  Again, I don't want that I just think that would be the best way.