distance debate

[Titleist99]

40 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

since youre asking, Im not necessarily convinced about changing the ball. Maybe it would be an improvement if it span more, I simply dont know.

I do know it doesnt make the slightest difference to the toaster debate. The two issues can stand by themselves

I'm thinking that you want to go retro all the way....

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

Okay, now what ball and shaft are we using with that driver club head? If we change the head, we must go back with all the corresponding eqiupment.....

Two things.  Change the overall distance standard for the ball to modern swing speeds for the best players, and modern launch characteristics.

Then change the COR to approximate wood.

That's about as traditional as I can get, without complete mutiny by the manufacturers.

[ChipStrokes]

48 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

read munichops post two below yours. Ask us if theres anything you dont understand 

if you have to reference a post after mine, it kind of hurts your argument that it had been addressed before

[milesgiles]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I get the idea of what @munichopsuggested.  Sounds wonderful.  But since you prefer “traditional”please let me know what exact era that was a reality?  By my count the most dominant players ever….Jones Hogan Snead Jack Norman Tiger had something  one glaring something advantage over most of the field.  Any idea what that advantage was?  If you need to do some research on this we can wait.  But I’ll give you a hint….they were not short knockers for their era.  So it has nothing whatsoever with your toaster.  It is strictly an advantage to be long.

 

yes? and?

[milesgiles]

Just now, ChipStrokes said:

if you have to reference a post after mine, it kind of hurts your argument that it had been addressed before

 

the same thing has been said in many different ways by many different people throughout this thread. Since his was by definition the easiest to find, I referred you to it.

[Titleist99]

5 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Two things.  Change the overall distance standard for the ball to modern swing speeds for the best players, and modern launch characteristics.

Then change the COR to approximate wood.

That's about as traditional as I can get, without complete mutiny by the manufacturers.

You know where I was going next.......

     Someone tried to convince me that this was already litigated in court, but with any modifications to the specs there will be opposition by the manufacturers and with good reason. The threat of a lawsuit is sometime just as powerful as the actual lawsuit itself.....IMO

[clevited]

I have mentioned this in a thread like this before (don't think it was this one), but instead of testing these ideas on the entire tour suddenly (which I think would lead to massive amount of negative outcomes from many different areas of the sport), why don't they do a "historic" tournament once or twice a year.  Host it at an older course that can still take the crowds, (or maybe not, forgo that for just tv coverage).  Make the allowable equipment be from a certain era, and or, find manufacturers that are willing to provide custom equipment for the participants (maybe it would be a small, invite only tournament to make that more doable).  

 

The way I see it, if this is truly the best thing for the game as a handful in here feel so strongly is true, then it should naturally take off and create a large following.  You may see "throw back" equipment start being made in small batches for those that want it and maybe, just maybe, it will catch on to the point where the masses are WILLING to accept the change rather than forcing the issue.

 

If you have faith it will bring back the glory of the game, then I don't see why this wouldn't be a great compromise.  If it doesn't work to create a long term change to the game like you want, then at least you will have 1 or 2 tournaments you can look forward to each year.  You can be appeased, and the rest of us can keep on watching and playing the modern game and enjoying that.

[milesgiles]

16 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

You know where I was going next.......

     Someone tried to convince me that this was already litigated in court, but with any modifications to the specs there will be opposition by the manufacturers and with good reason. The threat of a lawsuit is sometime just as powerful as the actual lawsuit itself.....IMO

 

is there going to be a manufacturers lawsuit when they inevitably ban petrol cars?

 

the key, as anyone intelligent realises, is to negotiate a reasonable timeline. for example, the cc limit will be 250 from 2027. Not tomorrow.

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, clevited said:

I have mentioned this in a thread like this before (don't think it was this one), but instead of testing these ideas on the entire tour suddenly (which I think would lead to massive amount of negative outcomes from many different areas of the sport), why don't they do a "historic" tournament once or twice a year.  Host it at an older course that can still take the crowds, (or maybe not, forgo that for just tv coverage).  Make the allowable equipment be from a certain era, and or, find manufacturers that are willing to provide custom equipment for the participants (maybe it would be a small, invite only tournament to make that more doable).  

 

The way I see it, if this is truly the best thing for the game as a handful in here feel so strongly is true, then it should naturally take off and create a large following.  You may see "throw back" equipment start being made in small batches for those that want it and maybe, just maybe, it will catch on to the point where the masses are WILLING to accept the change rather than forcing the issue.

 

If you have faith it will bring back the glory of the game, then I don't see why this wouldn't be a great compromise.  If it doesn't work to create a long term change to the game like you want, then at least you will have 1 or 2 tournaments you can look forward to each year.  You can be appeased, and the rest of us can keep on watching and playing the modern game and enjoying that.

 

because its all about money list, fedex points, world rankings etc. Yes id pay to watch it, no it wont happen 

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

because its all about money list, fedex points, world rankings etc. Yes id pay to watch it, no it wont happen 

 

Then clearly,it isn't what is best for the game.  I believe it is an avenue the USGA/RNA can take.  They can add a couple of tournaments a year that they set up and sponsor that could usher in their desires without the certain backlash.  I don't see a reason not to do it.

[milesgiles]

58 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I get the idea of what @munichopsuggested.  Sounds wonderful.  But since you prefer “traditional”please let me know what exact era that was a reality?  By my count the most dominant players ever….Jones Hogan Snead Jack Norman Tiger had something  one glaring something advantage over most of the field.  Any idea what that advantage was?  If you need to do some research on this we can wait.  But I’ll give you a hint….they were not short knockers for their era.  So it has nothing whatsoever with your toaster.  It is strictly an advantage to be long.

 

Interesting you choose Norman (2 majors) over Lee, Nick and Seve (5/6 each..) or Hagen (11, third most ever..)

[milesgiles]

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Then clearly,it isn't what is best for the game.  I believe it is an avenue the USGA/RNA can take.  They can add a couple of tournaments a year that they set up and sponsor that could usher in their desires without the certain backlash.  I don't see a reason not to do it.

 

because they take the path of least resistance, like any failing corporation. 

[clevited]

55 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

because they take the path of least resistance, like any failing corporation. 

 

So path of least resistance is to continue to make a big stink about distance?  Path of least resistance would be to stop talking about it imo.

[milesgiles]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

So path of least resistance is to continue to make a big stink about distance?  Path of least resistance would be to stop talking about it imo.

 

but the tours arent doing anything are they, except occasionally making a noise and kicking the can down the road

Edited April 18, 2022 by milesgiles

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

yes? and?

Do I really spell it out for you?  I know you have an axe to grind for some reason with modern drivers but sure…I’ll entertain you one more time since you like playing these games.

 

You claim to want traditional….then you want all facets of the game equally rewarded on a strokes gained basis.  Those two DO NOT COMPUTE.  Length has always been most rewarded. Period. Approach SG is a part of that but is right there with it. Down the line further is putting.  
   I mentioned the best of the game because they were all long hitters. Each and every one.  So to wish for some utopian game that never existed is laughable.

 

 

PS I didn’t ask a question so no need to answer with your copy pasted “see previous post”. Good luck getting toast banned.😒

[milesgiles]

11 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Do I really spell it out for you?  I know you have an axe to grind for some reason with modern drivers but sure…I’ll entertain you one more time since you like playing these games.

 

You claim to want traditional….then you want all facets of the game equally rewarded on a strokes gained basis.  Those two DO NOT COMPUTE.  Length has always been most rewarded. Period. Approach SG is a part of that but is right there with it. Down the line further is putting.  
   I mentioned the best of the game because they were all long hitters. Each and every one.  So to wish for some utopian game that never existed is laughable.

 

 

PS I didn’t ask a question so no need to answer with your copy pasted “see previous post”. Good luck getting toast banned.😒

 

 We dont have the data to say how important distance was in previous generations, but I gave you four of the most successful who werent known at all for being long and straight. 

 

edit 5, Gary Player with 9 majors of course

 

double edit, of the 14 players with 6 majors or more, ive got at least 6 who werent known for being long and straight.. Player, Faldo, Hagen, Vardon, Trevino, Sarazen. Far as I know Watson wasnt that long either. 

 

All with traditional equipment.

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by milesgiles

[ChipStrokes]

37 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

but the tours arent doing anything are they, except occasionally making a noise and kicking the can down the road

because this isn’t a pga tour issue. they don’t care.

 

it’s a perceived issue by golf’s ruling bodies. 

[oikos1]

On 4/17/2022 at 12:08 PM, munichop said:

The governing bodies are moving at a slower pace because they fear being sued.

 

Not much of a governing body if that's their issue.

[milesgiles]

9 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

because this isn’t a pga tour issue. they don’t care.

 

it’s a perceived issue by golf’s ruling bodies. 

 

its not a perception that tees have had to be continually moved back to limit architectural redundancy. Its factual. 

[ChipStrokes]

7 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

its not a perception that tees have had to be continually moved back to limit architectural redundancy. Its factual. 

if length was truly the harbinger of death for golf and golf courses, why don’t the longest on tour win week in and week out?  

 

i don’t see how there’s an issue because a bunker jack was in isn't in play anymore. 

 

you’re just upset because golf today doesn’t fit your idea of what it should look like 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[milesgiles]

3 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

if length was truly the harbinger of death for golf and golf courses, why don’t the longest on tour win week in and week out?  

 

i don’t see how there’s an issue because a bunker jack was in isn't in play anymore. 

 

 

 

dont read the thread

 

read this

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2020/distance-insights/SOC-FINAL.pdf

[smashdn]

On 4/16/2022 at 6:02 PM, Jim53 said:

I got a kick out of Streep hitting an 8 iron 181 yds and Cantashuffle a PW 160, what you going to do about that? 

 

I'd put them on loft and lie machine and see what loft they are before I lost one bit of sleep for how far anyone hit their irons.

 

On 4/16/2022 at 7:36 PM, MUNIGRIT said:

What is traditional size? What year are we rolling it back to?

 

Solid persimmon size.  Say 200cc to cap it at a nice round number.

 

23 hours ago, buckeyefl said:

Who are you or anyone else to decide when traditional starts. We've been through this a thousand times but I am guessing you are using stell and graphite shafts. So why the lack of "tradition"?

 

Graphite shafts were available in persimmon heads.  Problem was they weren't very good graphite shafts.  Instead of getting hung up on what material they are made of, I would focus on the playing aspects of them.  It isn't like steel shafts are obsolete, the vast majority play them in their irons and wedges.  The use of steel in drivers and other woods was stopped because you could make the whole package lighter and thus swing it faster with graphite.  Sort of the same deal with length of the shaft.  A lack of weight at the end of the shaft meant you could make it a little longer.  Incrementally all these improvements in design for the purpose have lead to increased distance.  (Not to mention the ball improvements.)  You can't really kill one improvement and not adjust for that impact it will have to balance the effect. 

 

6 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Most traditionalist have a hard time defining traditional......

they don't know if they want to go back before Tiger, Jack, Hogan , Jones or "ol Tom.....IMO

 

Steel shaft and persimmon heads.  Roughly 1940 to 1990.  That would encompass a time period where the clubs remained largely unchanged.  Basically the "steel" era of golf.  Post hickory shafts and pre-titanium club heads.

 

6 hours ago, caniac6 said:

Didn’t hear anything about distance during the Hilton Head tournament. Maybe they need to play tighter courses.

 

50 weeks of one style of course and one type of test of golf would be quite dull.

 

6 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

it hasn't been answered at all.  the roll back crowd can't seem to agree on what exactly they're trying to accomplish.

 

Munichop summed it quite well again.  This thread is 50+ pages long.  And there have been others before.

 

Speaking only for myself, I would like to see the importance of distance better balanced with the other "golf skills" including putting, short game, approach, etc.  If you were looking at a pie chart, driving might still be the largest slice of the pie but it would be quite similar in size to SG-putting and SG-Approach in terms of importance.  Keep the correlation coefficient of the various variables more close to one another than they currently are.  This would allow a guy who is marginally better than average putter compete with a better than average driver.  Basically now if you are say 5% better than the field at driving the ball you are more than 5% better than the field than someone who is 5% better at putting than the field or approach.  Driving's importance is more weighted to winning than other aspects.  (Broady says putting is the key in a single round or tournament.)

 

In terms of how that would manifest itself on the course would be sort of what you saw this past weekend.  YJS couldn't buy a putt but since he was hitting great approach shots and not killing himself off the tee he was able to win, but just win.

 

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Good course design will balance skills.  The modern architects don't want to work that hard and are enamored with aesthetics (see Pete Dye for counter example).   Some of the old classics still hold up well, but many that relied on singular features to make the course tough have been overwhelmed by the variety of changes that began in the 70s (agronomy, fitness, equipment, data based strategies, etc...).

 

I give you Robert Trent Jones, Dick Wilson, and William F. Bell.  Not only what you said but, as a whole, that period form 1945 to 1980 or so was not good architecture.

 

5 hours ago, munichop said:

What I would like to see accomplished is an equal weighting of the skill sets necessary to compete on tour.  They measure all these strokes gained criteria from driving to putting.  In a balanced system one skill set wouldn't overwhelm others.  Even now while certain players drive it longer on average they still must have other skills to win.  That being said if the distance advantage overwhelms the design architecture of the course it skews the advantage too much to distance.  Throw in the variables of course setup, wind etc. and it gets more complicated.  

The result of all the tech improvements and optimization thru trackman is that more and more players have decided to chase distance as a quicker path to winning.  

I have said before that it is easier for a top player thru tech to hit it longer compared to say hitting irons closer to the hole.  So one of the offsets to length for its own purpose is to make it more challenging to hit it long and straight.  That can be done by capping moi and requiring balls to spin off line more than they currently do.  Then the guys who hit it more solidly have an advantage.  When Tiger was on his tear earlier in his career they measured why he hit it longer than other guys.  The found out hit hit it more near the c.g. more often and that gave him a huge advantage because everyone was playing spinny balatas.  Pro equipment needs to return to an era where the mis hit is punished more not covered up by the design improvements.  The results would put fear back into the player knowing he has to hit the ball well to gain an advantage. 

Same goes for short game and putting.  Few people develop a great short game without a lot of practice, same with putting.  But a player can gain distance by having a short session with trackman and getting a new shaft, head ball combination.  No other skill in the game can be improved that quickly- unless of course they all started using the square face wedge- you really can't hit it fat you know... 
 

 

Second bolded part I think is the crux of the matter.  It is sort of the sabermetrics of golf.  The formula is mostly known now.  

 

The way to "stuff the genie back in the bottle" is to make the ingredients of the formula not severely outweigh one another.  

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

dont read the thread

 

read this

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2020/distance-insights/SOC-FINAL.pdf

i don’t need to read a report written by what

i can only imagine are a dozen clones of you. 

 

it’s been covered and quoted here ad nauseam. 

 

it’s a bunch of grouchy white men who don’t like what their sacred game looks like now.  it couldn’t hold less weight with me. 

[smashdn]

21 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

 

Not much of a governing body if that's their issue.

 

What other governing body has sway over both amateur and pro games and the money at stake at the pro level?

 

NBA makes there own rules with little regard for FIBA.  MLB, is there even a governing body for all of baseball?  NFL.

 

Soccer/football doesn't follow the same rules.

 

It is a different dynamic.  

[ChipStrokes]

5 minutes ago, smashdn said:

This thread is 50+ pages long.  And there have been others before.

yes, and i’ve read most of it. 

 

what i’m getting at is that some want to make the driver smaller, some want to make the ball spin more, some want to see old courses stay relevant, some want longer clubs on approach, and some want scores closer to par. so, which is it?

[smashdn]

5 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

i don’t need to read a report written by what

i can only imagine are a dozen clones of you. 

 

it’s been covered and quoted here ad nauseam. 

 

it’s a bunch of grouchy white men who don’t like what their sacred game looks like now.  it couldn’t hold less weight with me. 

 

Seek first to understand man.  How can we have constructive dialogue or understand another's viewpoint if you won't even entertain the evidence he has put before you because of your preconceived notions of what the USGA is?

 

At any rate, those grouchy, old white dudes, in the USGA and across the pond at the R&A are the groups that make the rules.  Like who they are or not they have sway.

 

If you want to know why it is a problem despite the PGA Tour being more popular than ever you should read the report.  If not it, read what others who work in the industry and must work to support the changes that increased distances have brought with it must do.

[milesgiles]

8 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

i don’t need to read a report written by what

i can only imagine are a dozen clones of you. 

 

it’s been covered and quoted here ad nauseam. 

 

it’s a bunch of grouchy white men who don’t like what their sacred game looks like now.  it couldn’t hold less weight with me. 

 

thats the difference between me and you. I'll weigh up opinions and data for myself regardless of the source, you just disregard anything from anyone who you dont think is on your side

[smashdn]

1 minute ago, ChipStrokes said:

yes, and i’ve read most of it. 

 

what i’m getting at is that some want to make the driver smaller, some want to make the ball spin more, some want to see old courses stay relevant, some want longer clubs on approach, and some want scores closer to par. so, which is it?

 

It is all of it.  Some prefer blondes over brunettes.

 

The pro game is about optics.  It is entertainment.  What entertains me is not the same as what you may like.

 

Some people watch NFL and love a good defensive slog where the offenses are thwarted and each score precious.  Some want to see offenses zipping down the field and the end score be 48 - 45.  Neither person is wrong.

 

^That might be the argument from someone who is looking at it solely from an entertainment and PGA Tour standpoint.  And that is fine.

 

I personally look at it more holistically.  When the ball goes farther it makes the game take longer to play, not less as one would intuitively think.  When the ball goes farther courses add distance to recreate the playing conditions pre-added distance (rightly or wrongly it happens).  Anytime you add more mown and manicured turf you add inputs to manage that turf, whether it is mowing, fertilizers, chemicals, water, etc.  That adds cost which is passed on to the consumer.  Not only that but it also sort of paints golfers and golf courses in a bad light.  A non-golfer then gets to looking at this golf course they either have to pay to access or if it is private can't access and gets to thinking about all the water they use, the chemicals they put down, etc.  This might be happening in an area with water restrictions or municipalities with regulations on what homeowners can use on their own lawns.  From a pure sustainability standpoint adding length to combat distance will not be well received.

 

For my game, I know how to add fun and challenge back in, I started playing persimmon woods and old forged irons.  The driver wedge game is largely gone for me.  Hitting a driver with indifference is not an option either.  You can get the same outcomes out of the old technology but you must be much more deliberate and exacting to get it from it.  Being more exacting is not something I would think would be bad for the pro game.

[Titleist99]

13 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

i don’t need to read a report written by what

i can only imagine are a dozen clones of you. 

 

it’s been covered and quoted here ad nauseam. 

 

it’s a bunch of grouchy white men who don’t like what their sacred game looks like now.  it couldn’t hold less weight with me. 

That distance report says that the game is fine and that the pros don't hit the golf ball as far as most think they do.

 

It goes on to say that they're concern but choose not to do anything at this time because they already have measures in place.......Now there, no need to read that nonsense because I summed it up.....

[ChipStrokes]

8 minutes ago, smashdn said:

How can we have constructive dialogue or understand another's viewpoint

it’s been 50+ pages of people not changing their minds. do you think that’s what we’re doing here?