distance debate

[Titleist99]

17 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.

Finally a well thought out post.....I don't agree with any of it but well thought out.

This one requires re-reading.......Hmmm

[oikos1]

7 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

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

Because it is more than just "skill" that made Tiger dominant.  He possesses an intangible for winning rarely found in most.

 

Also kind of funny you choose to cite Tiger since he is far from the poster boy of your revolution.  His ball started it all...

 

"The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods.  I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone.  When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core ball."

 

 

So when you say "There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame ", It's just another backhanded comment slamming the quality of skilled players today.

 

[Simpsonia]

4 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

So when you say "There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame ", It's just another backhanded comment slamming the quality of skilled players today.

 

 

It's not even just slamming the quality of skilled players, but completely misunderstanding how many skilled players there are these days. These days you have a very broad junior golf program in this country (though still arguably disproportionately available only to the wealthy, but that's another topic altogether) that develops skill that was unthinkable 60 years ago. Look at the amount of talent in the entire NCAA D1 golf program. Look at how junior golf developed up phenoms like Spieth, Scheffler, and JT, and that's just Texas junior golf alone. It's not that there isn't enough all around skill to separate the top players, it's that there's so many more skilled players than there were in the past that it looks diluted, when in fact it just makes every tournament a horse race that anyone can win, which I think is fantastic. 

[Titleist99]

14 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Because it is more than just "skill" that made Tiger dominant.  He possesses an intangible for winning rarely found in most.

 

Also kind of funny you choose to cite Tiger since he is far from the poster boy of your revolution.  His ball started it all...

 

"The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods.  I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone.  When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core ball."

 

 

So when you say "There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame ", It's just another backhanded comment slamming the quality of skilled players today.

 

"Because it is more than just "skill" that made Tiger dominant.  He possesses an intangible for winning rarely found in most."

ABSOLUTELY! ......3 straight junior Amateurs and 3 straight Amateurs.....

Arguably one of his greatest feats in golf....

Edited May 3, 2022 by Titleist99

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It's not even just slamming the quality of skilled players, but completely misunderstanding how many skilled players there are these days. These days you have a very broad junior golf program in this country (though still arguably disproportionately available only to the wealthy, but that's another topic altogether) that develops skill that was unthinkable 60 years ago. Look at the amount of talent in the entire NCAA D1 golf program. Look at how junior golf developed up phenoms like Spieth, Scheffler, and JT, and that's just Texas junior golf alone. It's not that there isn't enough all around skill to separate the top players, it's that there's so many more skilled players than there were in the past that it looks diluted, when in fact it just makes every tournament a horse race that anyone can win, which I think is fantastic. 

 

Great point, I have brought something similar up in the past.  I often see the skill of today's players downplayed so much that they act like they are all terrible.  The reality is that there has been more access than ever to quality teaching, tools for teaching (trackman), leisure time to practice, access to golf courses, money to buy clubs and ability to find clubs that best suit you.  There is also much more money in playing golf professionally such that more talented athletic types are attracted to the sport.  It almost has to follow that there are more skilled players today than ever in the history of golf.

[Titleist99]

37 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Because it is more than just "skill" that made Tiger dominant.  He possesses an intangible for winning rarely found in most.

 

Also kind of funny you choose to cite Tiger since he is far from the poster boy of your revolution.  His ball started it all...

 

"The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods.  I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone.  When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core ball."

 

 

So when you say "There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame ", It's just another backhanded comment slamming the quality of skilled players today.

 

"The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods.  I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone.  When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core balll.

 

Tiger wasn't calling for a rollback then .......LOL!

[Titleist99]

What will golf do if it can't sell the longest hitters in the game ??

The Bryson's, the young guns on the developmental tours, the kids in the drive chip and putt contest.....

 

How will the manufacturers sell new drivers to the public if distance is rolled back and the drivers don't go straight....??

[smashdn]

5 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

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.

 

Who hasn't acknowledged that?  Maybe it hasn't been typed out here because it seems rather elementary at this point.  Maybe you have failed to read where I have stated numerous times it is not about score.  Score can be manipulated by set-up.  Score is impacted by conditions.  Just because a set-up or design can create a desired score does not mean that the issue is resolved.

 

A 285 on 6700 yards and a 285 on 7500 yards are different.  They look different.  The play is different.  The shots being asked are different and how you have to make that 6700 yards play to get that 285 are different.

 

Designers don't dictate green speeds.  Designs can though.  Most any green design can play well by playing slower.  Not every green design can play well playing faster however.

 

How would you say the design of approaches have changed that have added challenge and in-turn increased the difficulty of scoring?

[smashdn]

5 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

 ...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.

 

For the players it is all about score.  For the fans/viewers/consumers of the sport it may not be.

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

For the players it is all about score.  For the fans/viewers/consumers of the sport it may not be.

Well, in these debates about distance, golf scores are often left out. You hear people talking about the score doesn't matter but with the Pro game it's all about the score and using your scoring clubs efficiently. There's the old saying that if a Pro could make more putts standing on his head, he'd do it. I firmly believe that fans enjoy watching birdies vs carnage.....I think that the PGATOUR agree, the USGA not so much.

[smashdn]

Logically, the higher the scores the more they get to see their favorite players swing the club.

 

I don't talk about score much because it can be manipulated.  See that other post of mine before these.  Also, I get just as much satisfaction out of watching a guy hit a bad shot followed by three great shots and scramble for par as two indifferent shots and a putt for birdie.  

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Logically, the higher the scores the more they get to see their favorite players swing the club.

 

I don't talk about score much because it can be manipulated.  See that other post of mine before these.  Also, I get just as much satisfaction out of watching a guy hit a bad shot followed by three great shots and scramble for par as two indifferent shots and a putt for birdie.  

Television viewing entertainment is for the many and not the few.........You my friend are the few.

 

In other words, you have to put on TV what the masses want to see...otherwise it won't be on TV for long..     IMO

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Because it is more than just "skill" that made Tiger dominant.  He possesses an intangible for winning rarely found in most.

 

Also kind of funny you choose to cite Tiger since he is far from the poster boy of your revolution.  His ball started it all...

 

"The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods.  I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone.  When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core ball."

 

 

So when you say "There isnt enough all round skill required to separate the top players, and thats a shame ", It's just another backhanded comment slamming the quality of skilled players today.

 

 

I was answering the specific comment that too much money prevented players being great. Nothing at all to do with what you wrote.

 

If technology had stayed comparable to when he turned professional, he would have won far more. Toasters removed his advantage off the tee. Im no Tiger fan, but that isnt right.

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It's not even just slamming the quality of skilled players, but completely misunderstanding how many skilled players there are these days. These days you have a very broad junior golf program in this country (though still arguably disproportionately available only to the wealthy, but that's another topic altogether) that develops skill that was unthinkable 60 years ago. Look at the amount of talent in the entire NCAA D1 golf program. Look at how junior golf developed up phenoms like Spieth, Scheffler, and JT, and that's just Texas junior golf alone. It's not that there isn't enough all around skill to separate the top players, it's that there's so many more skilled players than there were in the past that it looks diluted, when in fact it just makes every tournament a horse race that anyone can win, which I think is fantastic. 

 

Maybe.. but we are now in a place where you are going to get a ton of players with one or two majors each. No dynasties, no established number one, no great champions to get misty eyed over.

Look at the success in tennis when three genuinely great players come along at once. The mens game is in a better state than at any time since at least Borg Mcenroe

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

"The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods.  I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone.  When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core balll.

 

Tiger wasn't calling for a rollback then .......LOL!

 

Dont know ehere the quote is from but that sounds like Nike advertising fluff. Whats the relevance if basically the whole field is using a similar ball? Who's rolling back what? For who? Sense made, none.

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

What will golf do if it can't sell the longest hitters in the game ??

The Bryson's, the young guns on the developmental tours, the kids in the drive chip and putt contest.....

 

How will the manufacturers sell new drivers to the public if distance is rolled back and the drivers don't go straight....??

 

A sorry state of affairs if all we are bothered about is how to protect wealthy manufacturers profit margins, rather than what might make the game more entertaining to watch

[milesgiles]

37 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Television viewing entertainment is for the many and not the few.........You my friend are the few.

 

In other words, you have to put on TV what the masses want to see...otherwise it won't be on TV for long..     IMO

 

where is the evidence that the lowest scoring tournaments are the most popular to watch? Surely you can show that objectively with tv/attendance ratings?

 

Or will you not bother because you suspect, as I do, the reverse is true?

[Nard_S]

9 hours ago, clevited said:

 

 

edit.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Nard_S

[Simpsonia]

14 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Maybe.. but we are now in a place where you are going to get a ton of players with one or two majors each. No dynasties, no established number one, no great champions to get misty eyed over.

Look at the success in tennis when three genuinely great players come along at once. The mens game is in a better state than at any time since at least Borg Mcenroe

 

Got it, you'd rather watch an uncompetitive field that a few small top players can beat up on over and over without risk. 

[milesgiles]

16 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Got it, you'd rather watch an uncompetitive field that a few small top players can beat up on over and over without risk. 

 

yes, because thats what sport is. Did you want Tyson to hit less hard to give others a chance?

 

Ridiculous

[Simpsonia]

10 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

yes, because thats what sport is. Did you want Tyson to hit less hard to give others a chance?

 

Ridiculous

 

Curious you put it that way since you're also arguing that the longest hitters in golf should be prevented by rules from hitting the ball as far as they can. But I guess we should give those short hitters a chance, right? 

[Titleist99]

49 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

where is the evidence that the lowest scoring tournaments are the most popular to watch? Surely you can show that objectively with tv/attendance ratings?

 

Or will you not bother because you suspect, as I do, the reverse is true?

Dear Sir,

I can't argue both sides of the debate. If you disagree with anything that I've said ....it's up to you to find something to the contrary......I'm starting to lose all respect for anything that comes out of your keyboard.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

A sorry state of affairs if all we are bothered about is how to protect wealthy manufacturers profit margins, rather than what might make the game more entertaining to watch

If you don't think that that matters......the game is in bad shape....

You have to be pretty naive if you don't know that manufactures drive the game, how else are they going to keep getting John Q. public to buy $500 drivers.

[milesgiles]

21 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Curious you put it that way since you're also arguing that the longest hitters in golf should be prevented by rules from hitting the ball as far as they can. But I guess we should give those short hitters a chance, right? 

 

No

 

if you read the thread, thats exactly NOT what myself or any of the rollbackers want

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

Dont know ehere the quote is from but that sounds like Nike advertising fluff. Whats the relevance if basically the whole field is using a similar ball? Who's rolling back what? For who? Sense made, none.

To make a stupid statement like this.....you should be prepared to tell us what part of the statement or quote is false......I'll wait.

[milesgiles]

21 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Dear Sir,

I can't argue both sides of the debate. If you disagree with anything that I've said ....it's up to you to find something to the contrary......I'm starting to lose all respect for anything that comes out of your keyboard.

 

i too turned off Mexico last week. Dull course, no test for the players. Ridiculously wide. The thread here was almost non existent. Compared to.. Bay Hill? Hilton Head? Sawgrass? Iconic courses and not low scoring, but all had huge threads here.

 

YOU were making the assertion that people want birdie fests.. thought you might have at least a little evidence for that.

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

To make a stupid statement like this.....you should be prepared to tell us what part of the statement or quote is false......I'll wait.

 

Ill ignore the rudeness on this occasion, but dont do it again.

 

The Nike ball didnt change anything. It says right there that almost everyone was using a solid ball by then. So what?

[oikos1]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

Dont know ehere the quote is from but that sounds like Nike advertising fluff. Whats the relevance if basically the whole field is using a similar ball? Who's rolling back what? For who? Sense made, none.

https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/tiger-woods-golf-ball-nike/

 

"At the 2000 Masters, one month before Woods officially put the Nike Tour Accuracy into tournament play in Germany, 59 of the 95 players had used a wound ball. In the ensuing year, Woods won nine events. When he capped off the Tiger Slam in 2001 at Augusta National, all but four players in the field used a solid-core ball.

The effect that the development of the Nike Tour Accuracy and Woods’s use of it had on other players and golf history wasn’t lost on Woods. Years later, in 2014, he said, “The biggest transition I ever made was in 2000. I won four straight majors with that ball, and the rest is history, because wound-ball technology is gone. Everyone switched. Being a part of that wave of innovation was exciting for me.”

[milesgiles]

13 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

If you don't think that that matters......the game is in bad shape....

You have to be pretty naive if you don't know that manufactures drive the game, how else are they going to keep getting John Q. public to buy $500 drivers.

 

I could not care less

[oikos1]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

Ill ignore the rudeness on this occasion, but dont do it again.

 

The Nike ball didnt change anything. It says right there that almost everyone was using a solid ball by then. So what?

Lol.  That's right, the ball didn't change anything.  It's the damn toasters on a stick and 3" tees. 

 

Miles, you are too much.  🤣🤣🤣