distance debate

[smashdn]

43 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

To change the game as we know it, at the height of its popularity would be totally irresponsible.

 

I hope you are right.  I am afraid that if we are not at the end or very near the end of the distance gains golf will be forced to reckon with the increased space it takes to play the game.

 

I like to think I live in in an area that has the right number of courses or is slightly underserved.  However, I don't know how a course can be built and make it financially given the current cost of land and the demand for housing here.  I know of a handful of courses that closed and were turned into sub-divisions and one that was created to have a golf course routed through it but instead they went back and built more houses.

[Titleist99]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I hope you are right.  I am afraid that if we are not at the end or very near the end of the distance gains golf will be forced to reckon with the increased space it takes to play the game.

 

I like to think I live in in an area that has the right number of courses or is slightly underserved.  However, I don't know how a course can be built and make it financially given the current cost of land and the demand for housing here.  I know of a handful of courses that closed and were turned into sub-divisions and one that was created to have a golf course routed through it but instead they went back and built more houses.

"I hope you are right.  I am afraid that if we are not at the end or very near the end of the distance gains golf will be forced to reckon with the increased space it takes to play the game."

 

Or at the very least, play the game within the parameter that's already laid out and the lowest score wins......

 

I do share your concerns about the closing of golf courses.... believe it or not, that is why I don't want to mess with the game. Our efforts need to be on the growth of the game or more will shut down for housing.

[Simpsonia]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I DO want to see the best all round player.. that includes being long and straight off the tee..not just crash it over the top of all the trouble with a high ss and massive sweetspot.

 

You wont see another dominant player after Woods. There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame 

 

So your concerns would be mitigated by having "trouble" (I'm guessing bunkers and the like) in the landing zones of the longer tour pros?

 

Because on the other aspects of the game we can fairly easily say that any modern tour pro needs to have a much sharper approach and short games than any of the stars of yesteryear like Hogan, Palmer, and Sneed due to the much much faster greens. So the only thing left is the off the tee. 

[milesgiles]

15 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So your concerns would be mitigated by having "trouble" (I'm guessing bunkers and the like) in the landing zones of the longer tour pros?

 

Because on the other aspects of the game we can fairly easily say that any modern tour pro needs to have a much sharper approach and short games than any of the stars of yesteryear like Hogan, Palmer, and Sneed due to the much much faster greens. So the only thing left is the off the tee. 

 

not really no you'll have to read the thread

[Maximilian]

4 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

Have course conditions, especially green speeds, ever been brought up in these roll back debates? I mean if Miles really wants to roll back to persimmon only, would he also advocate rolling back greens to what they were like in the 70s and prior? Back then the average green speed on tour events was 6.5, as compared to modern tour setups that average about 12 now. I imagine you'd have to pair those shag rug looking greens with the equipment rollback right?  At least as the counter-balance, with the spin they generate, modern pros wouldn't ever have to worry about not sticking the green. 

Personally, I think fast greens and fast fairways are much more interesting to watch (and to play for that matter). Ideally, they would even have to hit a certain shot shape now and again in order to get the ball to end up in a good spot. Slow fairways and greens takes much of that skill out of the equation. The most interesting courses are usually designed to require several different type of shots in order to get the best chances, as well as a couple real risk reward decisions to make through out the round. But really anything but target golf is fine by me.
 

When a few rare players “find” more distance and can pick lines that no one else can to avoid trouble or give them a much better look, that’s entertaining for me to watch. But when half the field can do it, it’s not very exciting anymore. I’m afraid that’s the direction things are heading unless we continue to redesign and expand the playing area, or perhaps find a solution to stop distances from continuing to creep, and that’s pretty much it.

 

The player with the lowest score will always win, more distance will always be an advantage. That’s not a debate in itself, it’s just stating the obvious. But a few of us are concerned that it’s just not going to be as entertaining soon unless we either scale back distances to make current courses continue to be a challenge, or continue to redesign, or even build completely new, larger, courses with all of the problems that creates. That can of course be debated, as well as what, if anything, would be the best solution.

 

”We” don’t think it’s unfair that the best golfers on the planet can hit it further than we can, or want the winning scores to be higher just because, or want to go back to exactly like things were in a different era. That’s just silly and does nothing for an otherwise interesting discussion.

[Chunkitgood]

3 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Somehow the traditionalist thinks that hitting meatballs 250 yards off the tee will generate the excitement to grow the game........I strongly disagree.

 

To change the game as we know it, at the height of its popularity would be totally irresponsible.

A true conservative attacks the traditionalists.

 

So let’s wait for a crisis then be proactive.  Thinking ahead is so…old mannish.

[clevited]

As much as I don't think there is an issue to solve with distance, I do enjoy reading people's ideas for change and reasons for it.  It tends to be the same old stuff though that isn't more than just a fleeting idea that has little thought put behind it.  I would absolutely love to see some people actually formulate a plan that considers both sides of the issue and keeps in mind the following.

 

-most don't think there is an issue

-the game needs to attract more people not less

-most enjoy the distance game, and hitting driver as far as many pro's do is a skill most can't dream of ever obtaining

 

Keeping the above in mind, I would love to see someone define the following.

 

-What is your goal with a change? (don't spare the details!)

-Why do you want the change?

-What all would you change to accomplish it? (don't spare the details!)

-How would you usher it in while considering the 3 things mentioned above?

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by clevited

[oikos1]

6 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I DO want to see the best all round player.. that includes being long and straight off the tee..not just crash it over the top of all the trouble with a high ss and massive sweetspot.

 

You wont see another dominant player after Woods. There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame 

 

Actually, there is.  They just don't give a s**t once they've got millions banked.

[Titleist99]

16 minutes ago, clevited said:

As much as I don't think there is an issue to solve with distance, I do enjoy reading people's ideas for change and reasons for it.  It tends to be the same old stuff though that isn't more than just a fleeting idea that has little thought put behind it.  I would absolutely love to see some people actually formulate a plan that considers both sides of the issue and keeps in mind the following.

 

-most don't think there is an issue

-the game needs to attract more people not less

-most enjoy the distance game, and hitting driver as far as many pro's do is a skill most can't dream of ever obtaining

 

Keeping the above in mind, I would love to see someone define the following.

 

-What is your goal with a change? (don't spare the details!)

-Why do you want the change?

-What all would you change to accomplish it? (don't spare the details!)

-How would you usher it in while considering the 3 things mentioned above?

 

Or, put a cap on everything from Golf balls, clubs, tees, golf course maximum length until the year 2054........revisit the state of the game at that time.

[farmer]

To Clev's post, the devil is in the details.  There is not a simple fix for "too far".  Bifurcate?  Sure, but for whom?  How much is enough of a roll back?  If the RB's decide to address distance, whatever they do will be complicated and unpopular.  In the 50+ years I've played golf, the one constant has been to try and get longer.  Even back in the wood era, players sought out drivers like the old Mac's because they were perceived as being longer.  Cap equipment where it is, let Bryson wannabe's bulk up, but let the game rock on.

[A.Princey]

Launch monitor era of the past 7+ years has really allowed players to optimize their potential distance gains. This cannot be understated either. 
 

I say just cap the ball to the current limit, lower driver MOI max to the highest legal amount that’s already been achieved, make driver max 46”, and be done with it. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by A.Princey

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, oikos1 said:

 

Actually, there is.  They just don't give a s**t once they've got millions banked.

 

Woods had an 8 figure contract before he turned pro.. how did he win a single major?

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, clevited said:

As much as I don't think there is an issue to solve with distance, I do enjoy reading people's ideas for change and reasons for it.  It tends to be the same old stuff though that isn't more than just a fleeting idea that has little thought put behind it.  I would absolutely love to see some people actually formulate a plan that considers both sides of the issue and keeps in mind the following.

 

6 hours ago, clevited said:

 

-most don't think there is an issue

evidence?

6 hours ago, clevited said:

-the game needs to attract more people not less

maybe, and?

6 hours ago, clevited said:

-most enjoy the distance game, and hitting driver as far as many pro's do is a skill most can't dream of ever obtaining

heck of a lot easier now than 30 years ago. A high ss is all you need.

6 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Keeping the above in mind, I would love to see someone define the following.

 

-What is your goal with a change? (don't spare the details!)

-Why do you want the change?

-What all would you change to accomplish it? (don't spare the details!)

-How would you usher it in while considering the 3 things mentioned above?

what exactly is the point of debating with someone who is militantly against any change at all no matter what 

6 hours ago, clevited said:

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by milesgiles

[clevited]

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

evidence?

maybe, and?

heck of a lot easier now than 30 years ago. A high ss is all you need.

what exactly is the point of debating with someone who is militantly against any change at all no matter what 

 

 

If you remember, I described a really basic example a few times of what could potentially make everyone happy that keeps in mind what I posted above.  I would be ok with an idea that doesn't force the issue while allowing something to take hold and flourish if it is truly the better form of golf.  It should sell itself is my theory if it is really the best version of the sport.  

 

In principle though, I do like to discuss things even if I am 100% against it.  It is called friendly debate and problem solving.  Something this world could use more of.  Sometimes people find something they can agree on, or at least come away with a better understanding of the opposing side point of view.  

 

As far as your other comments, the evidence is abundant if you have any objective reality of the situation.  Your comment about driving being easier than 30 years ago and just needing a high ss is out of touch and not objectively true otherwise I would be as good as almost anyone on tour at driving. 

 

I am uninterested in your comments now miles, I gave it my best shot to get an honest debate out of you, and get you to use your brain more but I have become bored of you.  I told you I would eventually. 

 

If you have something interesting to discuss though that pertains to my post asking for someone to effectively formulate a plan of attack that keeps certain important criteria in mind, my boredom of you would likely cease.

Edited May 3, 2022 by clevited

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Or at the very least, play the game within the parameter that's already laid out and the lowest score wins......

 

I do share your concerns about the closing of golf courses.... believe it or not, that is why I don't want to mess with the game. Our efforts need to be on the growth of the game or more will shut down for housing.

 

When I am just playing by myself at the local course I play with persimmon and old forged clubs.  That allows me to play the back tees and still have more than a 9i in my hands for approaches occasionally.  With modern stuff, no exaggeration, my approach clubs into the par fours are no longer than an 8i on the longest par four and that is due to it being uphill.  One par five (that was lengthened recently) is a driver, 3i or 3w hole and the rest are at most driver 5i.  The par three holes are the only ones that force an 8i-5i in my hands.  

 

So while I agree it is ultimately about what you score, I see already having to wait and wait for par four holes to clear before playing.  There are two par four holes on the front at the local course we wait for the greens to clear.  Plus the two par fives.  Add in the two par threes and we are waiting for the greens to clear on six of the nine holes.

 

This is why I have been saying how the game is being played is important as well.  Not just what you want to see on TV but what you see on saturday morning at the local muni.  All the waiting kills the flow of the game.  If you have read any Bill Yates it would be evident why a lack of proper flow through the course leads to golfer dissatisfaction.

 

This is a golf problem not just a tour or tours problem.  Like I said in the other post, I hope the gains are through though.  The courses that can will adjust and we will enter a long period of stasis.

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

When I am just playing by myself at the local course I play with persimmon and old forged clubs.  That allows me to play the back tees and still have more than a 9i in my hands for approaches occasionally.  With modern stuff, no exaggeration, my approach clubs into the par fours are no longer than an 8i on the longest par four and that is due to it being uphill.  One par five (that was lengthened recently) is a driver, 3i or 3w hole and the rest are at most driver 5i.  The par three holes are the only ones that force an 8i-5i in my hands.  

 

So while I agree it is ultimately about what you score, I see already having to wait and wait for par four holes to clear before playing.  There are two par four holes on the front at the local course we wait for the greens to clear.  Plus the two par fives.  Add in the two par threes and we are waiting for the greens to clear on six of the nine holes.

 

This is why I have been saying how the game is being played is important as well.  Not just what you want to see on TV but what you see on saturday morning at the local muni.  All the waiting kills the flow of the game.  If you have read any Bill Yates it would be evident why a lack of proper flow through the course leads to golfer dissatisfaction.

 

This is a golf problem not just a tour or tours problem.  Like I said in the other post, I hope the gains are through though.  The courses that can will adjust and we will enter a long period of stasis.

 

I am just curious what exactly you mean by the gains?  

 

[smashdn]

Distance gains.  Increases in driving distance.  The thing mentioned in the USGA/R&A report.

 

In one of these threads someone mentioned they thought we were at one of those plateaus that we look at on the graphs.  I am hopeful that we are at a long and final plateau so courses, if they want to adjust, can, and the adjustments be enough and final for a long time.

 

If we can't put the genie back in the bottle let's hope he is done granting distance wishes.

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

If you remember, I described a really basic example a few times of what could potentially make everyone happy that keeps in mind what I posted above.  I would be ok with an idea that doesn't force the issue while allowing something to take hold and flourish if it is truly the better form of golf.  It should sell itself is my theory if it is really the best version of the sport.  

one of the first things I said in this thread was to demonstrate the idea in an off season, minor tournnament. You pooh poohed it and said we had to do years of LM testing first

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

In principle though, I do like to discuss things even if I am 100% against it.  It is called friendly debate and problem solving.  Something this world could use more of.  Sometimes people find something they can agree on, or at least come away with a better understanding of the opposing side point of view.  

you made it abundantly clear there is no aspect of the problem you agree. According to you its lowest score wins, shot values be damned

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

As far as your other comments, the evidence is abundant if you have any objective reality of the situation.  Your comment about driving being easier than 30 years ago and just needing a high ss is out of touch and not objectively true otherwise I would be as good as almost anyone on tour at driving. 

very odd, seeing how you have assured us 125mph with a traditional size clubhead, teed up, is no issue at all for you as a midcapper. Which is it? Are they mostly in play, or mostly going sideways/not reaching the ladies tee.. cant be both

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

I am uninterested in your comments now miles, I gave it my best shot to get an honest debate out of you, and get you to use your brain more but I have become bored of you.  I told you I would eventually. 

good

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

If you have something interesting to discuss though that pertains to my post asking for someone to effectively formulate a plan of attack that keeps certain important criteria in mind, my boredom of you would likely cease.

your 'important criteria' is ONE important criteria. Dont change anything the game is fine. 

So fine in fact, that in your life you have never attended a single professional tournament!

[Titleist99]

6 hours ago, A.Princey said:

Launch monitor era of the past 7+ years has really allowed players to optimize their potential distance gains. This cannot be understated either. 
 

I say just cap the ball to the current limit, lower driver MOI max to the highest legal amount that’s already been achieved, make driver max 46”, and be done with it. 

I've said this many time......the driving range is full of electronics that dials in the swing like a Swiss watch. A cap is fine for equipment.

[gvogel]

12 hours ago, clevited said:

As much as I don't think there is an issue to solve with distance, I do enjoy reading people's ideas for change and reasons for it.  It tends to be the same old stuff though that isn't more than just a fleeting idea that has little thought put behind it.  I would absolutely love to see some people actually formulate a plan that considers both sides of the issue and keeps in mind the following.

 

-most don't think there is an issue

-the game needs to attract more people not less

-most enjoy the distance game, and hitting driver as far as many pro's do is a skill most can't dream of ever obtaining

 

Keeping the above in mind, I would love to see someone define the following.

 

-What is your goal with a change? (don't spare the details!)

-Why do you want the change?

-What all would you change to accomplish it? (don't spare the details!)

-How would you usher it in while considering the 3 things mentioned above?

 

I believe that I answered your questions some time ago in this thread.  But I will re-hash anyway.

 

My goal for the changes would be to keep older golf courses (of which there are many in the world) a challenge for the very best players.  Among other things, that means limiting the distance that very good players are able to obtain, especially with the driver.

 

A second goal would be to make driving the ball in play more difficult that it is currently.  I believe that this would provide a better examination of ball striking for the very best players, and would separate the very best from the almost very best.

 

My changes would be: change the overall distance standard for the ball, or change the swing speed at which it is evaluated.  Change the maximum size of a club head to 200 cc, maybe 230 cc.  And change the COR back to approximate persimmon, which I believe is about .77.

 

I would usher these changes in at the pro and very competitive amateur level (NCAA, US Am qualifiers), and leave the game alone for everyone on this thread who wants to bash the ball with a huge, hot faced driver.

[MattC555]

8 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I believe that I answered your questions some time ago in this thread.  But I will re-hash anyway.

 

My goal for the changes would be to keep older golf courses (of which there are many in the world) a challenge for the very best players.  Among other things, that means limiting the distance that very good players are able to obtain, especially with the driver.

 

A second goal would be to make driving the ball in play more difficult that it is currently.  I believe that this would provide a better examination of ball striking for the very best players, and would separate the very best from the almost very best.

 

My changes would be: change the overall distance standard for the ball, or change the swing speed at which it is evaluated.  Change the maximum size of a club head to 200 cc, maybe 230 cc.  And change the COR back to approximate persimmon, which I believe is about .77.

 

I would usher these changes in at the pro and very competitive amateur level (NCAA, US Am qualifiers), and leave the game alone for everyone on this thread who wants to bash the ball with a huge, hot faced driver.

 

I wonder if pro's and sponsors would go with changes like this or just move over to a competing tour that keeps the same regulations.  That would have to be a consideration.  I like taking my old persimmon out every once in a while, but you'd have a hard time convincing me to do it all of the time. 

 

If you standardized the tour ball, in the same manner as MLB, NBA, etc.  I think you'd have an easier time convincing players.  Driver isn't the only club they are hitting miles.  Look how far Brooks hits a 3 iron:

 

 

Who was hitting a 3 iron 250 yards in 1985?

 

[clevited]

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Distance gains.  Increases in driving distance.  The thing mentioned in the USGA/R&A report.

 

In one of these threads someone mentioned they thought we were at one of those plateaus that we look at on the graphs.  I am hopeful that we are at a long and final plateau so courses, if they want to adjust, can, and the adjustments be enough and final for a long time.

 

If we can't put the genie back in the bottle let's hope he is done granting distance wishes.

 

I think we are there already in the technology sense with a few small exceptions.  RBs should still be forward thinking and putting limits on things like shaft weight for an example.  They should have done that long ago, along with not allowing hollow headed irons and some other things.  They just need to focus on catching the future instead of the past imo.

 

Even though I say the above, I have good reasons to believe (from lots of testing), we are stagnant with driver technology and distance and have been for a long time.  Tour average will still creep up over then next 5 years or so but it will hit an asymptote (this isn't due to technology, it is due to more an more players learning to hit it long as part of their game)  300 yards is about where that is I think and we are close to that.  The longest will still be handcuffed by the courses themselves and the longest pros will still hover around that 315 ish area.  Anyone can decide to push it further but we have to look at whether that person is having abnormal success as a result or if it is an experiment that doesn't work out to be as consistent as they were hoping (Bryson).  

 

Regarding that driving distance average, I would love to see what it is for all holes except par 3s.  I think you would see it drop massively and maybe people wouldn't focus on those big numbers so much.  It would show how much long pros have to hold back over the course of the year I think.

 

 

[MattC555]

 

Rory is carrying 3W 293 yards!  He is hitting a bladed 4 iron 240.  These guys are beasts.  The game has become more athletic. 

[Titleist99]

17 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

I hope you are right.  I am afraid that if we are not at the end or very near the end of the distance gains golf will be forced to reckon with the increased space it takes to play the game.

 

I like to think I live in in an area that has the right number of courses or is slightly underserved.  However, I don't know how a course can be built and make it financially given the current cost of land and the demand for housing here.  I know of a handful of courses that closed and were turned into sub-divisions and one that was created to have a golf course routed through it but instead they went back and built more houses.

What do you call someone that constantly want to turn golf courses in housing projects?

 

A politician......

[clevited]

18 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I believe that I answered your questions some time ago in this thread.  But I will re-hash anyway.

 

My goal for the changes would be to keep older golf courses (of which there are many in the world) a challenge for the very best players.  Among other things, that means limiting the distance that very good players are able to obtain, especially with the driver.

 

A second goal would be to make driving the ball in play more difficult that it is currently.  I believe that this would provide a better examination of ball striking for the very best players, and would separate the very best from the almost very best.

 

My changes would be: change the overall distance standard for the ball, or change the swing speed at which it is evaluated.  Change the maximum size of a club head to 200 cc, maybe 230 cc.  And change the COR back to approximate persimmon, which I believe is about .77.

 

I would usher these changes in at the pro and very competitive amateur level (NCAA, US Am qualifiers), and leave the game alone for everyone on this thread who wants to bash the ball with a huge, hot faced driver.

 

I appreciate the rehash, stuff gets lost and forgotten in these threads.

 

I have some questions about your ideas and thoughts for you to consider.

 

-What is considered a challenge for the very best players (I don't think any of them say golf is easy)?

-Is is possible they just make it look easy when they are playing really well and it isn't in actuality, ever easy?

-Have you thought of the repercussions of bifurcation?  Can you address some of them?

-Have you considered the changes made to modern courses that don't facilitate the significant roll backs you are suggesting?  (green complexes, green speed, length).

-How do you think your changes would be received?  Would it help or hurt the game in your opinion?  Keep in mind there are lots of non conforming clubs out there and anecdotally, I don't know a single golfer that wants them.  I think people will be effectively forced to buy the roll back stuff and that will be all they will eventually be able to buy.

[Simpsonia]

What the rollbackers don't seem to acknowledge is that, for the most part, tour golf is still mostly as hard as it was back in the day. Otherwise we'd see Rory and DJ coming in with a 62 every round if their distance advantage was as great as they make it out to be. That's because course designers have adapted by altering course design. Some have lengthened, but the biggest change by far is in approaches, green designs, and green speeds. 

 

Sure some very short courses may play easier (average score vs par) than they used to, but by and large those scores aren't massively different. If it really became an issue for keeping short courses like Pebble in the rotation, the easiest answer is simply used limited flight balls for certain courses. So for all tour stops under 7k yards, use a ball that takes 10% flight off. Over 7k, use any ball you want. There problem solved. 

[clevited]

10 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

Rory is carrying 3W 293 yards!  He is hitting a bladed 4 iron 240.  These guys are beasts.  The game has become more athletic. 

 

It helps that fairway woods have got the spin down a lot.  Difference between my old TM R9 3 wood and my current Epic Flash SZ 3 wood, about 1k RPM. 

[Nard_S]

12 hours ago, clevited said:

-What is your goal with a change? (don't spare the details!)

-Why do you want the change?

-What all would you change to accomplish it? (don't spare the details!)

-How would you usher it in while considering the 3 things mentioned above?

I would roll back COR to something in between old & new standard, I would add more initial spin and increase aerodynamic drag to the ball. Again something in-between old balata and Pro V. A higher floor on both. Everything else can stay the same and if you don't get paid you don't have to adhere to those standards.

 

The goal is not to roll back distance but to open up dispersion and restore hazards of errant face/path and effect of wind. Net is fairways are tighter & greens smaller & course plays longer with all clubs. Driver has more risk/reward, and maybe forced out of hands more, so approach with mid and long irons come back in vogue but long hitters remain long, greens remain fast and courses don't have to drop millions to stay relevant. It also brings today's player closer to historical norms and makes their competence easier to judge. \

 

High level golf is not about distance. There's lots of guys who can hit tour distance but they will never play, big boy golf is about spin control and if you put too much of that on auto pilot or take it away with low spin drives and wedge approaches, you step all over the very reason they are great or why you should watch them at all. 

 

The RB's understand all this. Augusta gets it too. I'm more certain than ever we will see these small changes in a few years. Golf is on an uptick and the game is pretty healthy but it is has nothing to do with 350 yard drives. Outside a few majors and a handful of tournaments, the game is quite vanilla and insanely boring to watch. If the average PGA Pro looked more like Tiger and less like Daly, the game would be a lot more interesting to pay attention to. Nineties era golf was way more interesting (too bad there was no shot tracer) and it's precisely because they did not have as much enabling technology. We don't even have to go back that far, we just have to recognize that what might be good for weekend warrior does not necessarily make for great Pro level entertainment.

[Titleist99]

The only thing that's constant in the game of golf is scoring, the lowest score. As the saying goes "it's not how...it's how many". Let's say the game evolves to the point that every par 4 is a driver wedge, then the lowest score with a driver and wedge wins the competition. When did golf become a game based on optics!?! everyone has their own version of how the game should be played and that's fine, but tournament golf is all about the score and the players will do whatever it takes to get the ball in the hole a little quicker....Just my opinion.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

I would roll back COR to something in between old & new standard, I would add more initial spin and increase aerodynamic drag to the ball. Again something in-between old balata and Pro V. A higher floor on both. Everything else can stay the same and if you don't get paid you don't have to adhere to those standards.

 

The goal is not to roll back distance but to open up dispersion and restore hazards of errant face/path and effect of wind. Net is fairways are tighter & greens smaller & course plays longer with all clubs. Driver has more risk/reward, and maybe forced out of hands more, so approach with mid and long irons come back in vogue but long hitters remain long, greens remain fast and courses don't have to drop millions to stay relevant. It also brings today's player closer to historical norms and makes their competence easier to judge. \

 

High level golf is not about distance. There's lots of guys who can hit tour distance but they will never play, big boy golf is about spin control and if you put too much of that on auto pilot or take it away with low spin drives and wedge approaches, you step all over the very reason they are great or why you should watch them at all. 

 

The RB's understand all this. Augusta gets it too. I'm more certain than ever we will see these small changes in a few years. Golf is on an uptick and the game is pretty healthy but it is has nothing to do with 350 yard drives. Outside a few majors and a handful of tournaments, the game is quite vanilla and insanely boring to watch. If the average PGA Pro looked more like Tiger and less like Daly, the game would be a lot more interesting to pay attention to. Nineties era golf was way more interesting (too bad there was no shot tracer) and it's precisely because they did not have as much enabling technology. We don't even have to go back that far, we just have to recognize that what might be good for weekend warrior does not necessarily make for great Pro level entertainment.

 

So much in this one, thanks for the post.  It is good to see some actual thoughts and explanation in one spot.  I am going to do the same I did for gvogel and just present some questions and comments mostly to do with the bolded parts.

 

-adding more initial spin might be hard to do as it can be considerably mitigated by technique and club design.  

-How much additional spin do you think is the right amount?

-increasing spin and drag disproportionately hinders the more athletically gifted player (the fast swinger).  So are saying you want to disproportionately take from those that have vs those that have not?

-More spin can stabilize flight depending on loft presented at impact.  You could actually see more boring golf as the balls would go shorter, and straighter.  

-Maybe consider that drivers should be super low loft and dictate MOI maximums?  Basically make the club purposefully as crappy as you can.  That would bring in some majorly squirrely shots.

-Can't fairway widths already be narrowed via growing the rough out?

-How are greens smaller with a spinnier ball?  Doesn't that help hold the green more easily?  Again, ball flight can be more stable with spin, it is spin axis tilt you want so I would say you have to make clubs intentionally crappy to make that happen.

-Not sure where the auto pilot comes in?  Is this because pro's make it look easy?  Do you have experience hitting them as hard as they do and controlling it?  If you do, is it auto pilot for you?

-Isn't golf about much more than spin control?  Is that really the reason people watch golf is spin control? Is spin control the only thing that makes them great?

 

Just some stuff to consider.  Interested in your answers.