distance debate

[storm319]

6 hours ago, gvogel said:

When the 13th hole at Augusta National becomes a drive and short iron, that hole, at least, is obsolete.

No, it simply needs to be changed to a par 4 for one week per year. The concept of par is subjective and ultimately needs to be evaluated/maintained for a given hole based on scoring trends. 

[Pastit]

11 hours ago, Hickory4ever said:

Sorry, Pastit, what I meant in the sentence was that  didn’t find watching tour players hit a Driver followed by a short iron into just about every par 4  and par 5 that entertaining. 
 

As for MUNIGRITs comment on going back to 1930 equipment, you should try it, I have. Actually, you don’t even have to go back that far, try some of the classic clubs, I do that too. If you are playing a course that was designed prior to 1990, try playing something approximating the equipment used in that era, you might find a new appreciation for the course. 
 

I also enjoy playing the new toys as well, especially on a modern course. 

No problem but I didn’t want to comment before clarification. Personally I agree with you. Maybe the situation is this:

 

As a youngster, I grew up with cast-off hickories, not being born into a family of oligarchs. Though I confess to discussing Kola salmon rivers with the Murmansk Oblast Soviet. I kept a 1930’s putter even after I joined a club and earned money -so did Ken Brown. Same with fishing gear.

 

Maybe the noisy objectors to distance-limitation are mainly those who started as juniors in the graphite shaft and metal head era. I accept anti-distance measures would be regarded as a retrograde step by this cohort. I would. 
 

For salmon fishing, I haven’t used split-cane rods since c 1982 - I’d be laughed off the river. But the new technology does not affect the sport in the way pro golf is ruined. But that’s just my opinion. 

Good luck everybody, going off thread now to restore some hickories. Y’all have a nice Bay Hill. Stay safe.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Pastit

[milesgiles]

13 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Someone needs to watch some old videos of pros swinging. Jack, Greg Norman, Annie, Hogan, Tiger, Miller, JD, Freddie, Els etc. What they say and what they did has always been totally different. 

 

let me clarify.. they swung hard (never flat out unless they are telling whoppers) WITHIN the confines of a technique that enabled them to return the club to the ball accurately.. ie no teeing the ball way up and forward, no maximising distance from ball, no hip turn restriction, no overswing etc etc etc

 

expanded sweetspots made all of this and more possible, and made golf one dimensional

[Fairway14]

11 hours ago, storm319 said:

No, it simply needs to be changed to a par 4 for one week per year. The concept of par is subjective and ultimately needs to be evaluated/maintained for a given hole based on scoring trends. 

 

I agree . Truly how far a players hits a tee ball or which club is left into a particular green should not matter to anybody. Whether a player reaches a par 4 with one shot or a par 5 with two shots does not matter . If players  shoot 57 for 18 holes there is no good sense reason for that low scoring to be considered a problem.

 

[dmecca2]

15 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I played a course today that I haven’t played in over 30 years. We played the back tees, and there is a par 5 with a long carry over water on the tee shot. With the old gear, I couldn’t carry it. Today, with the modern equipment, and at age 67, I carried it with plenty to spare. I’m certainly not long enough to make any course obsolete, but that was a clear example of how much the new clubs and ball have increased distance.

 

Your "clear example" couldn't be further from clear. So many factors and variables involved. For instance, clubs are designed to be optimized for the player. Launch angle, spin, etc can be adjusted to maximize carry. This isn't as much technology, as it is an understanding of physics.

[dmecca2]

13 hours ago, storm319 said:

No, it simply needs to be changed to a par 4 for one week per year. The concept of par is subjective and ultimately needs to be evaluated/maintained for a given hole based on scoring trends. 

If you look at the statistics, it plays perfectly in line with the other par 5's. More birdies, more bogeys+. Risk/reward.

[clevited]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

let me clarify.. they swung hard (never flat out unless they are telling whoppers) WITHIN the confines of a technique that enabled them to return the club to the ball accurately.. ie no teeing the ball way up and forward, no maximising distance from ball, no hip turn restriction, no overswing etc etc etc

 

expanded sweetspots made all of this and more possible, and made golf one dimensional

 

Not sure what you are smoking but can I have some????

 

Joking, but in all seriousness, you make it sound like pro's are swinging out of their shoes on every shot with driver.  I promise you they are not.  Case in point, Bryson.  He can top 210 with his standard length driver giving it absolutely everything he has.  He is not doing that currently, even on the holes where he could get away with it.  There are many tour players that hold back.  I rarely if ever see anyone swinging so hard they completely lose balance and stumble or something like one might do when they are really giving it everything they have.  I think you are guessing as much as anything and the nuance of this all makes the waters muddy.

 

Again, I know where you stand on this but glass house arguments like that are beneath you.  If you want to go down this road, please try to find some real proof to make your point.  You are better than this.  I am open minded to some concrete evidence (as much as can reasonably be dug up on the internet) but so far, this talking point of yours has fallen pretty flat time and time again.  

 

Sorry I just couldn't leave this alone, this kind of argument bothers me, and I really do want to see the evidence that makes you believe this talking point so whole heartedly.  

Edited March 2, 2022 by clevited

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Not sure what you are smoking but can I have some????

 

Joking, but in all seriousness, you make it sound like pro's are swinging out of their shoes on every shot with driver.  I promise you they are not.  Case in point, Bryson.  He can top 210 with his standard length driver giving it absolutely everything he has.  He is not doing that currently, even on the holes where he could get away with it.  There are many tour players that hold back.  I rarely if ever see anyone swinging so hard they completely lose balance and stumble or something like one might do when they are really giving it everything they have.  I think you are guessing as much as anything and the nuance of this all makes the waters muddy.

 

Again, I know where you stand on this but glass house arguments like that are beneath you.  If you want to go down this road, please try to find some real proof to make your point.  You are better than this.  I am open minded to some concrete evidence (as much as can reasonably be dug up on the internet) but so far, this talking point of yours has fallen pretty flat time and time again.  

 

Sorry I just couldn't leave this alone, this kind of argument bothers me, and I really do want to see the evidence that makes you believe this talking point so whole heartedly.  

 

whilst sweetspots are bigger through the bag, lets stick to the driver for simplicity, and also because that is the club I have the problem with.

 

Why WOULDNT you swing harder with a bigger sweetspot?? We know how important distance is statistically.. It defies all logic to say pro's hold back as much as they did in the past. You surely don't believe that?

[clevited]

26 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

 

Your "clear example" couldn't be further from clear. So many factors and variables involved. For instance, clubs are designed to be optimized for the player. Launch angle, spin, etc can be adjusted to maximize carry. This isn't as much technology, as it is an understanding of physics.

 

THIS!

 

Modern clubs I would argue are better designed rather than just insanely hot.  Back in the day (even when I started playing), there just wasn't an understanding of optimizing equipment for your swing.  Nobody really thought about that.  You had guys that could hit it a mile if only they had equipment that fit them properly and for those that somehow lucked out and found clubs that did exactly what they wanted, they could reap the rewards.  For example,  I have a handful of wooden drivers from the 70s.  Only 1 of which gives me really good numbers off the tee.  The shaft kicks just right, it is heavy enough and it spins low enough and launches high enough where I could get the most out of it given its lower COR.  

 

There is also the idea that some people get better at golf as they get older.  When I was younger, and arguably stronger, there is no way I was longer than I am now even with optimized equipment.  I learned to swing more efficiently and I worked on speed for a long time to get what I have today.

[oikos1]

3 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

whilst sweetspots are bigger through the bag, lets stick to the driver for simplicity, and also because that is the club I have the problem with.

 

Why WOULDNT you swing harder with a bigger sweetspot?? We know how important distance is statistically.. It defies all logic to say pro's hold back as much as they did in the past. You surely don't believe that?

Just how much are you suggesting pros held back in the past?

[Pastit]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

let me clarify.. they swung hard (never flat out unless they are telling whoppers) WITHIN the confines of a technique that enabled them to return the club to the ball accurately.. ie no teeing the ball way up and forward, no maximising distance from ball, no hip turn restriction, no overswing etc etc etc

 

expanded sweetspots made all of this and more possible, and made golf one dimensional

Sorry, Norman held nothing back.

[milesgiles]

Just now, oikos1 said:

Just how much are you suggesting pros held back in the past?

 

no one knows since we couldnt measure with the same accuracy we do now.. but I'll ask you the same question, are you saying they hold back just as much now, even though the sweetspot is so much bigger?

[milesgiles]

1 minute ago, Pastit said:

Sorry, Norman held nothing back.

 

if he did (havent seen him say that but could be wrong) he was absolutely the best driver of a ball of his generation. That advantage would be largely nullified today, and thats not right

[amace04]

6 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

whilst sweetspots are bigger through the bag, lets stick to the driver for simplicity, and also because that is the club I have the problem with.

 

Why WOULDNT you swing harder with a bigger sweetspot?? We know how important distance is statistically.. It defies all logic to say pro's hold back as much as they did in the past. You surely don't believe that?

But they very clearly do.

Rory has 340+ in him on command.  He doesn't do it often on tour, because he needs control.  DJ can get it up close to that too.

Same with Bryson.  He recently topped 221 ball speed at a Cobra event.  His tour average is closer to 200 because 221 is quite simply uncontrollable.

 

All pros favor control over distance.  They very rarely take a full swing at anything, including driver.

[clevited]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

whilst sweetspots are bigger through the bag, lets stick to the driver for simplicity, and also because that is the club I have the problem with.

 

Why WOULDNT you swing harder with a bigger sweetspot?? We know how important distance is statistically.. It defies all logic to say pro's hold back as much as they did in the past. You surely don't believe that?

 

I would agree with you that an am might swing harder with the bigger sweet spot, but really they swing harder because they probably won't entirely miss the ball.  Most still don't hit the sweet spot even if they swing lightly lol.   Now for a pro, I argue that they hit dead center so often that the smaller heads don't bother them like you think they do.  Obviously there might be a point at which you make a club so small even a robot would struggle but we both know that isn't realistic.  I provided evidence to suggest that a player like Rory Mcilroy doesn't change his speed much if at all when swinging a driver vs a 3w.  The conclusion you can draw from that is that it is very unlikely that players would hold back any appreciable amount with a fairway wood sized head as a pseudo "fix" to the problem you and others have with distance.

 

Once your swing is so good, you don't concern yourself with hitting the ball, the ball just simply gets in the way of your club path.  Even myself, with a less that optimal swing can largely "free my mind" and just swing knowing I am not going to miss with any club and it will just be a matter of how well did I center it.  

 

You would have to make a club that went sideways with any teeny tiny off center hit.  If you make that, nobody would play golf and I know from experience, even the wooden woods of old weren't that bad.

[milesgiles]

Just now, amace04 said:

But they very clearly do.

Rory has 340+ in him on command.  He doesn't do it often on tour, because he needs control.  DJ can get it up close to that too.

Same with Bryson.  He recently topped 221 ball speed at a Cobra event.  His tour average is closer to 200 because 221 is quite simply uncontrollable.

 

All pros favor control over distance.  They very rarely take a full swing at anything, including driver.

 

not what I asked 

[milesgiles]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

 

I would agree with you that an am might swing harder with the bigger sweet spot, but really they swing harder because they probably won't entirely miss the ball.  Most still don't hit the sweet spot even if they swing lightly lol.   Now for a pro, I argue that they hit dead center so often that the smaller heads don't bother them like you think they do.  Obviously there might be a point at which you make a club so small even a robot would struggle but we both know that isn't realistic.  I provided evidence to suggest that a player like Rory Mcilroy doesn't change his speed much if at all when swinging a driver vs a 3w.  The conclusion you can draw from that is that it is very unlikely that players would hold back any appreciable amount with a fairway wood sized head as a pseudo "fix" to the problem you and others have with distance.

 

Once your swing is so good, you don't concern yourself with hitting the ball, the ball just simply gets in the way of your club path.  Even myself, with a less that optimal swing can largely "free my mind" and just swing knowing I am not going to miss with any club and it will just be a matter of how well did I center it.  

 

You would have to make a club that went sideways with any teeny tiny off center hit.  If you make that, nobody would play golf and I know from experience, even the wooden woods of old weren't that bad.

 

but again, thats just a circular argument.. if they dont need them, take them away.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

but again, thats just a circular argument.. if they dont need them, take them away.

 

It is a circular argument.  If it doesn't fix the perceived problem, why take them away?  Its also potentially wasteful.  There was a time when pro's stuck to the smaller CC drivers while the 460s were sold to the public.  Nobody bought the smaller CC clubs, eventually they stopped making them.  Mini drivers however have started to be made but I don't think those are making a comeback in any meaningful way.

 

FYI, I have a 3 wood pretty much only to act as a mini driver.  I don't like to slow my swing much with longer clubs as it is harder for me to time and I just end up short and off target.  I have the 3 wood so I can swing full but not blow it through into a hazard or OB if it doesn't draw or cut as much as I planned.  I am not afraid to rip a 3 wood and I am just a lowly midcapper.

[amace04]

5 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

not what I asked 

Ah, so you think old pros used to just chip the ball around the course and card an 85 (which wouldn't be incorrect in the 1800s) because applying even the slightest bit of effort meant the ball would ricochet uncontrollably off the toe.

 

If you want to watch a bunch of pros take half-swings, go watch a local senior event.

[dmecca2]

5 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

but again, thats just a circular argument.. if they dont need them, take them away.

Whether they have them or dont, it doesnt make enough of a difference to justify rolling back the equipment for everyone (which would suck for everyone because distance is not a problem for 99% of amateurs), or bifurcation, which would cause a whole SLEW of issues for top amateurs and lower level pros. The game is good where it is now. Keep the current regulations in place.

[amace04]

11 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

but again, thats just a circular argument.. if they dont need them, take them away.

"Pros don't need forgiveness, so make clubs less forgiving"

Is that really your stance?  You want golf to cater ONLY to the very best in the world?

You're what's wrong with golf.

[dmecca2]

20 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

THIS!

 

Modern clubs I would argue are better designed rather than just insanely hot.  Back in the day (even when I started playing), there just wasn't an understanding of optimizing equipment for your swing.  Nobody really thought about that.  You had guys that could hit it a mile if only they had equipment that fit them properly and for those that somehow lucked out and found clubs that did exactly what they wanted, they could reap the rewards.  For example,  I have a handful of wooden drivers from the 70s.  Only 1 of which gives me really good numbers off the tee.  The shaft kicks just right, it is heavy enough and it spins low enough and launches high enough where I could get the most out of it given its lower COR.  

 

There is also the idea that some people get better at golf as they get older.  When I was younger, and arguably stronger, there is no way I was longer than I am now even with optimized equipment.  I learned to swing more efficiently and I worked on speed for a long time to get what I have today.

IMO, not talked about enough. All of these "gains" that club companies advertise year after year, is just from optimization. Everyone's swing changes year to year, and just cause this year's driver gets you 3 more yards, does not mean this technology is 3 yards better. You just lost 3 yards from a minor swing change in the last year.

[oikos1]

10 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

no one knows since we couldnt measure with the same accuracy we do now.. but I'll ask you the same question, are you saying they hold back just as much now, even though the sweetspot is so much bigger?

Seems to me you have provided a sufficient response: "no one knows"

 

As has been noted numerous times, there are many reasons why a pro might be swinging faster.  There is no way to know how much a player "holds back" compared to past players.  In fact, the variance of "hold back" would most likely also occur hole by hole, course by course.

[milesgiles]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

It is a circular argument.  If it doesn't fix the perceived problem, why take them away?  Its also potentially wasteful.  There was a time when pro's stuck to the smaller CC drivers while the 460s were sold to the public.  Nobody bought the smaller CC clubs, eventually they stopped making them.  Mini drivers however have started to be made but I don't think those are making a comeback in any meaningful way.

 

FYI, I have a 3 wood pretty much only to act as a mini driver.  I don't like to slow my swing much with longer clubs as it is harder for me to time and I just end up short and off target.  I have the 3 wood so I can swing full but not blow it through into a hazard or OB if it doesn't draw or cut as much as I planned.  I am not afraid to rip a 3 wood and I am just a lowly midcapper.

 

its my argument that it DOES make a difference..

[milesgiles]

10 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Ah, so you think old pros used to just chip the ball around the course and card an 85 (which wouldn't be incorrect in the 1800s) because applying even the slightest bit of effort meant the ball would ricochet uncontrollably off the toe.

 

If you want to watch a bunch of pros take half-swings, go watch a local senior event.

 

strawman

 

 

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Whether they have them or dont, it doesnt make enough of a difference to justify rolling back the equipment for everyone (which would suck for everyone because distance is not a problem for 99% of amateurs), or bifurcation, which would cause a whole SLEW of issues for top amateurs and lower level pros. The game is good where it is now. Keep the current regulations in place.

 

I am pretty convinced that the larger heads of the drivers today really just give a pro 1 or 2 shots a round that are potentially less punished than they might have been with smaller equipment.  If they had to use only fairway head sized drivers (so effectively a really strong 3 wood), I think they would adjust (in both the swing and equipment) and still belt it out there almost as far as they once did with maybe an extra miss or two that we might not even notice as observers.

 

The big heads are more appealing to the masses and I it obviously helps them a lot with getting into the sport.  Less of that whiffing happening that is so embarrassing when you first start playing.

 

It doesn't make much sense to me to bifurcate either.  I don't like that the tour decided to shorten driver length which is effectively a major bifurcation.  I also think it does absolutely nothing for the game other than hurt taller players or players that have refined their swing so much, that they can game a longer driver and keep it in play.

 

 

[milesgiles]

8 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Whether they have them or dont, it doesnt make enough of a difference to justify rolling back the equipment for everyone (which would suck for everyone because distance is not a problem for 99% of amateurs), or bifurcation, which would cause a whole SLEW of issues for top amateurs and lower level pros. The game is good where it is now. Keep the current regulations in place.

 

pro's and amateurs in gross competitions should play traditional size drivers. The sky will not fall

[milesgiles]

6 minutes ago, amace04 said:

"Pros don't need forgiveness, so make clubs less forgiving"

Is that really your stance?  You want golf to cater ONLY to the very best in the world?

You're what's wrong with golf.

 

already answered

[amace04]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

strawman

 

 

And?

You've yet to make a coherent argument on the subject.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

its my argument that it DOES make a difference..

 

Define difference.  

 

Does said difference solve the perceived problem?

 

Be honest here.