distance debate

[milesgiles]

22 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I just don't see any way around this though. Even a rollback, these guys will still be way longer than you/me and will still have that advantage...they'll just hit 9 iron into the green instead of flip wedge, while we are hitting 4 irons.

 

At the end of the day we're old now (sucks, but true). Maybe we shouldn't be competing with elite 25yr olds. I was a really good basketball player growing up , played junior college, held high school records---and i'd get my a** handed to me now at 40 years old by kids LOL. I used to be able to dunk now i can't touch the rim and i'm still in good shape.

 

Golf is like the only sport where 40-50yr olds are like "it's unfair i can't compete with elite 23yr olds" LOL.

 

I play in tournaments too, a couple of years ago i had a match against a guy who outdrove me by 60-70 yards and i'm not short. Was one of the top juniors in Quebec a few years back now is like 24-25. Really nice guy, after round i was just like "yeah....you're better than me" . Length is a part of that....but i mean, it's like boxing a guy out in basketball at my age and being like "hey man don't jump so high, it's not fair!"

 

who is saying it isnt fair for that reason though?

 

the bit that 'isnt fair' is that golf has become too one dimensional.. swing hard, putt well. You will never see another Faldo, Pavin, Trevino or Player. Thats what isnt fair.

[Pastit]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

who is saying it isnt fair for that reason though?

 

the bit that 'isnt fair' is that golf has become too one dimensional.. swing hard, putt well. You will never see another Faldo, Pavin, Trevino or Player. Thats what isnt fair.

What makes you think GP didn’t swing hard ? Have you watched him in real life ? 

[RCGA]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

the bit that 'isnt fair' is that golf has become too one dimensional.. swing hard, putt well. You will never see another Faldo, Pavin, Trevino or Player. Thats what isnt fair.

 

I don't know how you can watch a PGA tournament event and call it one dimensional. The guys in the top 10 on Sunday (aka those on TV), are absolutely killing it at every single strokes gained category. They're the best players in the world playing their best golf. 

 

It just feels like some aren't going to be happy unless the player announces his shot, out loud, before hitting it. 

[Pastit]

On 2/22/2022 at 1:01 PM, milesgiles said:

 

of course. Its the worst administered game in the world.

 

Im not at all sure about the spinnier ball.. surely you can set up your swing or driver for less spin to counteract it, and if it did work you'd be penalising the longest hitters arbritrarily and disproportionately

I suggest the same ball for all but have 5 holes drilled right through the ball for the pros. Holes to be 2mm dia. No cleaning of balls or raking of bunkers. 

[Nard_S]

12 hours ago, storm319 said:

As previously stated, bifurcation is in reference to the actual regulation, not differences in equipment choice/ availability. In your example, tour issued equipment still conforms to the same regulations as retail equipment so it is not an example of bifurcation. An actual example of equipment bifurcation would be the groove rule but that is temporary as a single regulation will be fully implemented come 1/1/2024.

They are limiting driver length to 46" for professional play, yet 48" for amateur will remain. That is bifurcation. It's real. They can also alter or tailor ball specs for tour use and leave current standard intact. They are on solid legal ground too. Tiger essentially endorsing bifurcation just shifted the ground a whole bunch. 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, Nard_S said:

They are limiting driver length to 46" for professional play, yet 48" for amateur will remain. That is bifurcation. It's real. They can also alter or tailor ball specs for tour use and leave current standard intact. They are on solid legal ground too. Tiger essentially endorsing bifurcation just shifted the ground a whole bunch. 

Yet we know neither of those changes will impact the professional game except Brooke Henderson having to learn how to hit a shorter driver.  The OEMs will have driver designs that mostly nullify performance impact of a tour only ball before the urethane thermosets.  What's the point of all that churn?

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

One of the more interesting ideas is making the ball bigger. It would be easier for ams to hit and the drag goes up as the ball moves faster. 

That would punish longer players disproportionately relative to shorter ones.  It would make putting more difficult.  Wonder if they would make the hole bigger?  That would really sow some chaos.

[MtlJeff]

46 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

who is saying it isnt fair for that reason though?

 

the bit that 'isnt fair' is that golf has become too one dimensional.. swing hard, putt well. You will never see another Faldo, Pavin, Trevino or Player. Thats what isnt fair.

 

The thread is called distance debate so i'm just assuming that is the crux of the discussion, and the extra distance is likely coming from all of that extra virility that comes with youth. So i'm just making that association.

 

The average fit 40-50yr old won't be as athletic as the average fit 18-29yr old. So for amateur events like Blade is talking about, it's a disadvantage we're unlikely to overcome anytime soon

 

Sports changes a lot--you'll never see another Michael Jordan either, the best player in the NBA being a guard who doesn't shoot 3's? Very unlikely to happen

[gvogel]

Apparently Patrick Cantlay agrees that the ball goes too far:

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2022/02/22/patrick-cantlay-rolling-back-golf-ball/

 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I just don't see any way around this though. Even a rollback, these guys will still be way longer than you/me and will still have that advantage...they'll just hit 9 iron into the green instead of flip wedge, while we are hitting 4 irons.

 

At the end of the day we're old now (sucks, but true). Maybe we shouldn't be competing with elite 25yr olds. I was a really good basketball player growing up , played junior college, held high school records---and i'd get my a** handed to me now at 40 years old by kids LOL. I used to be able to dunk now i can't touch the rim and i'm still in good shape.

 

Golf is like the only sport where 40-50yr olds are like "it's unfair i can't compete with elite 23yr olds" LOL.

 

I play in tournaments too, a couple of years ago i had a match against a guy who outdrove me by 60-70 yards and i'm not short. Was one of the top juniors in Quebec a few years back now is like 24-25. Really nice guy, after round i was just like "yeah....you're better than me" . Length is a part of that....but i mean, it's like boxing a guy out in basketball at my age and being like "hey man don't jump so high, it's not fair!"

I understand. And I’d agree with all that if it were just age.  But most old man pros now hit it much longer than they did at 25.  And they’ll tell you that.  
 

 

i don’t think any game has changed as much as golf as far as equipment and style of play. Basketball players don’t have springy shoes. The goal wasn’t lowered.  The ball isn’t smaller , baseball doesn’t use metal bats.  
 

i don’t know.  If I had a  Daloreon I’d go back to the last persimmon days and show them video of today.  Guaranteed they’d write new rules that day.  . Right or wrong I’d bet on them reacting with shock.  That’s how much the spirit of the game has changed. In my opinion 

 

[Nard_S]

53 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yet we know neither of those changes will impact the professional game except Brooke Henderson having to learn how to hit a shorter driver.  The OEMs will have driver designs that mostly nullify performance impact of a tour only ball before the urethane thermosets.  What's the point of all that churn?

I don';t believe any of that. They know exactly the how & why a Pro V performs in comparison to a Tour 100. The current conformance standards allow an end round. They close a couple loop holes, or create a few more hoops of conformity, it's easily done. 

 

What would be the point? When Tiger walks off the stage, we might understand then. If Tiger never came back, where are we? The Sony Open, every week even at Augusta, that's where. BDC at US Open, nice pile of stink, real ratings grabber. Lots of juice there. Odd the greatest player, the guy who quadrupled the money, is really old school Hogan and the tour keeps running from that with the gear they sanction. Good job.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Nard_S

[jvincent]

55 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yet we know neither of those changes will impact the professional game except Brooke Henderson having to learn how to hit a shorter driver.  The OEMs will have driver designs that mostly nullify performance impact of a tour only ball before the urethane thermosets.  What's the point of all that churn?

 

A rolled back ball would be largely impervious to new driver designs. To insert a Star Trek quote, you cannot change the laws of physics.

 

Change the maximum distance test in place today to use a 200 mph ball speed at 2000 rpm of spin instead of the current numbers (175 mph / 2500 rpm) and you've put a big damper on distance going forward. Yes, players will continue to get stronger but even if they get to ball speeds above 200 mph there's enough drag that the distance gains are probably minimal.

 

Strictly speaking if the USGA really wanted to get fancy they could define a limit on the drag coefficient or Reynolds number of the ball across a range of velocities.

Edited February 23, 2022 by jvincent

[bladehunter]

12 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

I don';t believe any of that. They know exactly the how & why a Pro V performs in comparison to a Tour 100. The current conformance standards allow an end round. They close a couple loop holes, or create a few more hoops of conformity, it's easily done. 

 

What would be the point? When Tiger walks off the stage, we might understand then. If Tiger never came back, where are we? The Sony Open, every week even at Augusta, that's where. BDC at US Open, nice pile of stink, real ratings grabber. Lots of juice there. Odd the greatest player, the guy who quadrupled the money, is really old school Hogan and the tour keeps running from that with the gear they sanction. Good job.

This ^.  This is what I cannot wrap my head around.     They clamor ( myself included ) for tiger.  And yet , he’s one of the ones yelling for a rollback.  So they want to see tiger.  Tiger greatness. Tiger long irons, etc. and yet they don’t want the recipe changed so we can see it.   

[gvogel]

34 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I understand. And I’d agree with all that if it were just age.  But most old man pros now hit it much longer than they did at 25.  And they’ll tell you that.  
 

 

i don’t think any game has changed as much as golf as far as equipment and style of play. Basketball players don’t have springy shoes. The goal wasn’t lowered.  The ball isn’t smaller , baseball doesn’t use metal bats.  
 

i don’t know.  If I had a  Daloreon I’d go back to the last persimmon days and show them video of today.  Guaranteed they’d write new rules that day.  . Right or wrong I’d bet on them reacting with shock.  That’s how much the spirit of the game has changed. In my opinion 

 

I guarantee you that playing the 16th hole at Cypress Point is a much bigger challenge with persimmon and balata than with today's equipment.

[MtlJeff]

45 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I understand. And I’d agree with all that if it were just age.  But most old man pros now hit it much longer than they did at 25.  And they’ll tell you that.  
 

 

i don’t think any game has changed as much as golf as far as equipment and style of play. Basketball players don’t have springy shoes. The goal wasn’t lowered.  The ball isn’t smaller , baseball doesn’t use metal bats.  
 

i don’t know.  If I had a  Daloreon I’d go back to the last persimmon days and show them video of today.  Guaranteed they’d write new rules that day.  . Right or wrong I’d bet on them reacting with shock.  That’s how much the spirit of the game has changed. In my opinion 

 

 

Oh for sure the equipment has made a difference, there's no question. But i also think the level of athlete playing golf has changed dramatically over the years too. This is true in most sports but i think even more so in golf because it wasn't necessarily a sport that required athleticism. This is more true at the pro level of course, amateurs you can still be a fat slob and play at a pretty high level, short of beating these college kids in tourneys.

 

If you put like a Ja Morant in the 60's and had Bob Cousy cover him, he'd think he was covering an alien. The average pro athlete is a much greater specimen now. this inevitably works its way to golf

 

I'd bet if you took the top 100 players in the world for swing speed now vs like 1975, even with a 43 inch steel driver---how many would be from now out of the top 25? Like 22-23 of them probably?

[Nard_S]

18 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

.     They clamor ( myself included ) for tiger.

They gave us John Daly at The Open. They thought the power was the juice, it was partially but long term it's his shot making skills. They skewed things so that it is nothing now but an arms race . One trick pony. Gets old, been old.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Nard_S

[Soloman1]

I'm not kidding when I say the club and ball manufacturers should have no restrictions on design and performance for amateurs. Bring back the British ball. Who cares? The average score for 20-30 years olds is 90. And it goes up from there with age.

 

I think the most vehement opponents to restricting amateur equipment would become the most vehement advocates in about two years.

 

I know, it would be a giant waste of time and energy to be back where we are now, but we operate in extremes now. People can't be convinced of anything until they suffer from the shoe being on the other foot for a while.

 

Wanting to play the same equipment as a tour pro is ridiculous. Get out of the damn cart and walk for a start. Then play from 7,400 yards and let us know how you're doing. The amateur consumer comparing themself to a tour pro is like comparing a high school kid trying to figure out how to make change at a McDonald's to an astronaut.

 

If you had a tour-quality game, you'd be a tour player.

 

Professional tours and the USGA can make their own rules.

 

How's that for a little disruption. 😎  GolfWRX is paying a Poster Impact Program (PIP) bonus this year, right?

 

(Disclaimer: It's raining and in the 40's in the desert of Scottsdale and my brain and body is in thermal shock.)

 

 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

29 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

A rolled back ball would be largely impervious to new driver designs. To insert a Star Trek quote, you cannot change the laws of physics.

 

Change the maximum distance test in place today to use a 200 mph ball speed at 2000 rpm of spin instead of the current numbers (175 mph / 2500 rpm) and you've put a big damper on distance going forward. Yes, players will continue to get stronger but even if they get to ball speeds above 200 mph there's enough drag that the distance gains are probably minimal.

 

Strictly speaking if the USGA really wanted to get fancy they could define a limit on the drag coefficient or Reynolds number of the ball across a range of velocities.

Yes, if they just directly nerf the ball then nothing can accommodate that.  However, what was recently suggested was adding spin to the ball; specifically spin when struck at high speed with driver.

 

Nerfing the ball or reducing max COR of clubs is the nuclear option and would reduce distance across the board.

 

The RBs will probably have a nerfed tour ball available for use as an MLR.  Tournament committees will choose to use or not.  If all pro events and major am events use the MLR then it won't be a big impact except make a mess of the handicap system. Meh.

 

If only some tournaments go nerf, then the winner will become who can adjust better week to week.  Who knows who that will favor.

[jvincent]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes, if they just directly nerf the ball then nothing can accommodate that.  However, what was recently suggested was adding spin to the ball; specifically spin when struck at high speed with driver.

 

Nerfing the ball or reducing max COR of clubs is the nuclear option and would reduce distance across the board.

 

The RBs will probably have a nerfed tour ball available for use as an MLR.  Tournament committees will choose to use or not.  If all pro events and major am events use the MLR then it won't be a big impact except make a mess of the handicap system. Meh.

 

If only some tournaments go nerf, then the winner will become who can adjust better week to week.  Who knows who that will favor.

 

Tiger's a good golfer, but a poor scientist. Adding spin isn't the answer. Increasing drag is.

 

And the thing with increasing drag is that it doesn't hit everyone the same. You get a compression in the delta between the longest and shortest hitters.

 

I'm going to make up some numbers here so don't hold me to these, but let's say the 200 mph ball is going to go from 360 carry to 300 but the 140 mph ball is going to go from 220 carry to maybe 215. That means most recreational golfers aren't going to see a big difference while the guys at the top end are going to see a big change.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

Tiger's a good golfer, but a poor scientist. Adding spin isn't the answer. Increasing drag is.

 

And the thing with increasing drag is that it doesn't hit everyone the same. You get a compression in the delta between the longest and shortest hitters.

 

I'm going to make up some numbers here so don't hold me to these, but let's say the 200 mph ball is going to go from 360 carry to 300 but the 140 mph ball is going to go from 220 carry to maybe 215. That means most recreational golfers aren't going to see a big difference while the guys at the top end are going to see a big change.

Yes, you can make a bigger ball to increase drag.  Drag is proportional to velocity square so the high ball speed folks get hammered more than slow.  Putting is harder.  Playing in the wind is harder (the UK folks will appreciate that).

[bladehunter]

28 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

They gave us John Daly at The Open. They thought the power was the juice, it was partially but long term it's his shot making skills. They skewed things so that it is nothing now but an arms race . One trick pony. Gets old, been old.

Exactly and it continues to be proven time and time again. Take young Jordan Spieth for instance. he brought the most excitement I’ve seen in the game since I’ve been playing it. And he did not do it with length ,  he did it with short game iron game and putter.  Now we’ve had Colin Morikawa and he also has brought some excitement although not as much with his iron game. The side shows like Bryson are only exciting for 15 or 20 minutes on certain holes of certain tournaments. And even then it’s the kind of excitement like watching a wreck on the interstate it’s voyeurism more so than real actual interest. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

9 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

Tiger's a good golfer, but a poor scientist. Adding spin isn't the answer. Increasing drag is.

 

And the thing with increasing drag is that it doesn't hit everyone the same. You get a compression in the delta between the longest and shortest hitters.

 

I'm going to make up some numbers here so don't hold me to these, but let's say the 200 mph ball is going to go from 360 carry to 300 but the 140 mph ball is going to go from 220 carry to maybe 215. That means most recreational golfers aren't going to see a big difference while the guys at the top end are going to see a big change.

To be fair I think tiger knows exactly what he say. Just as you said Drag will not hit everybody the same way it will continue to create the parity that we have right now. He wants to see spin so that it takes more ability talent and or practice to control the ball.

[m d g]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:42 AM, EddieEdwards said:

I would alter the couse setups first, tighter fairways longer rough.

The fairways on tour look like they're running faster than the greens most of us play on. Getting rid of 60 yards of runout would help.

 

I was watching 'Shell's Wonderful World of Golf' awhile back where Nicklaus was playing Pebble Beach...looked like the '70s or maybe '80s. The fairways looked like a muni...dandelions and all. I guarantee they weren't 12 on the Stimp meter.

[bladehunter]

39 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Oh for sure the equipment has made a difference, there's no question. But i also think the level of athlete playing golf has changed dramatically over the years too. This is true in most sports but i think even more so in golf because it wasn't necessarily a sport that required athleticism. This is more true at the pro level of course, amateurs you can still be a fat slob and play at a pretty high level, short of beating these college kids in tourneys.

 

If you put like a Ja Morant in the 60's and had Bob Cousy cover him, he'd think he was covering an alien. The average pro athlete is a much greater specimen now. this inevitably works its way to golf

 

I'd bet if you took the top 100 players in the world for swing speed now vs like 1975, even with a 43 inch steel driver---how many would be from now out of the top 25? Like 22-23 of them probably?

I don’t know man.  I’ll preface this by knowing that it won’t be a popular opinion.  And I get what you’re saying. Relatively to the average 5-10 250 lb couch potato , sure. But.  I’m saying it from a place where I’ve seen real athletes up close for years. 
 

i don’t think that many tour  pros really qualify as high level athletes.  DJ , Rahm , ok…maybe rory , although I’ve never seen anything out of him as far as running or ball ….except hurting himself.    But I mean Berger , Spieth , JT , Bryson , etc.  can they make their rec league basketball team if cuts are made ?  Doubtful.  Can they beat high school kids in the mile  , 800 meter etc ?  Doubt it.  .  I’m not in any kind of running shape compared to my youth.  But. I retain a body that requires no meds , and low enough body fat that I could shed it in 2 weeks if I decided to.  And I’d bet anything that I could train for a month and run circles around most tour pros and I’m 42. Point being.  I’ve ran against physical freaks for half my life . And I don’t see any out there really.  I don’t believe they’re doing much more physically than has ever been done.  The equipment is that much better. It’s allowed he harder swing. The old guys had the body  to swing that fast . They didn’t have the equipment that allowed it.  Look at young Arnold. He was built better than most today.   You guys just forget how it was.  
 

i didn’t play back then.  So I have no skewed memory to see it with.  I can pick up and fit myself with old stuff and see what has been gained by todays stuff. It’s quite a bit.  

[MtlJeff]

4 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I don’t know man.  I’ll preface this by knowing that it won’t be a popular opinion.  And I get what you’re saying. Relatively to the average 5-10 250 lb couch potato , sure. But.  I’m saying it from a place where I’ve seen real athletes up close for years. 
 

i don’t think that many tour  pros really qualify as high level athletes.  DJ , Rahm , ok…maybe rory , although I’ve never seen anything out of him as far as running or ball ….except hurting himself.    But I mean Berger , Spieth , JT , Bryson , etc.  can they make their rec league basketball team if cuts are made ?  Doubtful.  Can they beat high school kids in the mile  , 800 meter etc ?  Doubt it.  .  I’m not in any kind of running shape compared to my youth.  But. I retain a body that requires no meds , and low enough body fat that I could shed it in 2 weeks if I decided to.  And I’d bet anything that I could train for a month and run circles around most tour pros and I’m 42. Point being.  I’ve ran against physical freaks for half my life . And I don’t see any out there really.  I don’t believe they’re doing much more physically than has ever been done.  The equipment is that much better. It’s allowed he harder swing. The old guys had the body  to swing that fast . They didn’t have the equipment that allowed it.  Look at young Arnold. He was built better than most today.   You guys just forget how it was.  
 

i didn’t play back then.  So I have no skewed memory to see it with.  I can pick up and fit myself with old stuff and see what has been gained by todays stuff. It’s quite a bit.  

 

I don't think these guys are necessarily people who would excel in other sports. Golf doesn't translate as well as some other things (like a WR playing volleyball or something).

 

But the guys you mention for what they need, strength , flexibility, whatever they need to generate that speed--is going to be really elite

 

I'm like you, i'm 40 but 6 foot 180, i ran a 4:50 mile at 36yrs old, and deadlifted 2X my body weight the same year. Last year for that internet pushup challenge thing my consecutive ones were in like the top 1%---And i still swing slower than 97% of the guys on tour

[MUNIGRIT]

11 minutes ago, m d g said:

The fairways on tour look like they're running faster than the greens most of us play on. Getting rid of 60 yards of runout would help.

 

I was watching 'Shell's Wonderful World of Golf' awhile back where Nicklaus was playing Pebble Beach...looked like the '70s or maybe '80s. The fairways looked like a muni...dandelions and all. I guarantee they weren't 12 on the Stimp meter.

That would make the longer hitters have even more of an advantage. No matter what you do the bombers will still bomb it passed the shorter hitters and have less clubs into the greens. You need the rollout for the Kisner types to win on the big courses. He has said it many times that he can play with the big guys if course is firm and fast but no chance if is is soft. 

[subrew]

I always thought it would be interesting for the RNA/PGA/USGA to run a pilot project with ball manufactures.  Most have small-run R&D production shops, for making a couple hundred balls at a time.  Set some parameters for 3-4 different ball characteristics, and have TM, Titleist, Callaway, Srixon etc. build small batch runs.  Something like a 25, 50, 75 compression rating, but built with tour-level urethane covers.  Perhaps specify dimple count min and max values.  Think Wilson Duo Soft built with Model R urethane covers.  Or Noodle 30 compression balls built with TP5 style layers and covers.  Hell, it would be funny just to see Rory out there hitting a 30 compression Noodle. 

 

Then have those companies get their hired guns to hit them with current equipment.  Do it at a handful of big PGA events throughout the year on a Tuesday.  Give a couple months between each event for the ball mfgs to tinker. 

 

Then have the equipment mfgs make some changes to equipment to best suit those specific balls.  After 3-4 ball sessions, give them time to make some proto drivers with adjusted lofts, CoG location etc., and see how much they claw back by fine-tuning a driver specific to a 25 or 50 compression spec.    

 

There is a threshold with really low compression values where a 80mph driver swing speed might not lose much distance at all (they might actual gain, as spin tends to be lower on the current crop of low compression balls,) a 90mph might lose a few yards, but a 120mph swing speed might lose 20+ yards.  Where is that threshold at different compression values, and would it really effect the average golfer much.

 

Chris H.

 

 

[jvincent]

52 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes, you can make a bigger ball to increase drag.  Drag is proportional to velocity square so the high ball speed folks get hammered more than slow.  Putting is harder.  Playing in the wind is harder (the UK folks will appreciate that).

 

Strictly speaking you don't need to make the ball larger to increase drag. That can all be done by changing the the dimple patterns.

[me05501]

16 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The OEMs market clubs and balls to players based on pro endorsements.  Bifurcation means the marketing is trashed.  No traceability between what the pros play and what amateurs play.  No one can maintain that level of suspended disbelief.

 

Interesting thought, but I disagree 100%. I think the big OEM's would love bifurcation.

 

They've already gone out of their way to offer "tour only" gear to the masses who are willing to pay (Callaway "triple diamond" heads for example). Bifurcation would allow them to grow both the consumer and the "Tour-spec" gear and a lot of their customers would buy similar items from both sides to shoot out against each other the same way they do now. 

 

I can imagine the approach would be very similar to the Toyota/Lexus or Nissan/Infiniti corporate families.

 

Anyone with eyes, or a computer, can tell you which Toyota chassis each Lexus is derived from. Still, people pay up for a Lexus every day because they want status or more creature comforts or what have you. 

It would be the same if Callaway was selling "Callaway" and "Callaway Professional" lines. 

[me05501]

23 minutes ago, subrew said:

I always thought it would be interesting for the RNA/PGA/USGA to run a pilot project with ball manufactures.  Most have small-run R&D production shops, for making a couple hundred balls at a time.  Set some parameters for 3-4 different ball characteristics, and have TM, Titleist, Callaway, Srixon etc. build small batch runs.  Something like a 25, 50, 75 compression rating, but built with tour-level urethane covers.  Perhaps specify dimple count min and max values.  Think Wilson Duo Soft built with Model R urethane covers.  Or Noodle 30 compression balls built with TP5 style layers and covers.  Hell, it would be funny just to see Rory out there hitting a 30 compression Noodle. 

 

Then have those companies get their hired guns to hit them with current equipment.  Do it at a handful of big PGA events throughout the year on a Tuesday.  Give a couple months between each event for the ball mfgs to tinker. 

 

Then have the equipment mfgs make some changes to equipment to best suit those specific balls.  After 3-4 ball sessions, give them time to make some proto drivers with adjusted lofts, CoG location etc., and see how much they claw back by fine-tuning a driver specific to a 25 or 50 compression spec.    

 

There is a threshold with really low compression values where a 80mph driver swing speed might not lose much distance at all (they might actual gain, as spin tends to be lower on the current crop of low compression balls,) a 90mph might lose a few yards, but a 120mph swing speed might lose 20+ yards.  Where is that threshold at different compression values, and would it really effect the average golfer much.

 

Chris H.

 

 

 

I think the general gist of changes to the ball or driver faces would be to increase the penalty for poorly-executed aggressive play. They'll make the adjustments so that perfect contact will give similar results to current but less than perfect contact will be more punishing. It'll be just enough to cause players to think twice or three times when they have the driver in their hands. 

 

For example, I can see a standard passed that requires a minimum amount of bulge and roll on the face of a driver. 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by me05501