distance debate

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

They aren't going to go out and make a 190 cc neutered club like many want on here. The current tour models aren't much different than what they are selling to the general public. There is nothing wrong with golf right now other than a bunch of whiners. 

 

If they did, it would take more than a fairway wood sized driver to accomplish anything that fixes the "problem".  It would have to be an extensive, purposeful de-engineering of golf clubs as we know then today to produce the desired result.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Yup smaller clubheads will fix everything. Why do a lot of pros grab a 3wd when struggling with driver like DJ did at Augusta this year?

 

Oooooh that strike location is sweet.  Not only is it consistent, it is slight high and toe side, perfect for the low spin 3w bomb draw!

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

Excellent. Therefore we can all agree to shrink it to 190cc max. You’re happy, clevited is happy, all us rollbackers are happy. 

 

I declare the thread closed! 

 

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

Excellent. Therefore we can all agree to shrink it to 190cc max. You’re happy, clevited is happy, all us rollbackers are happy. 

 

I declare the thread closed!

Nah, no one agreed to that nonsense......send all your correspondence to the USGA I'm sure they'll listen to you.

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

Hey wait a minute.....You're advocating a 190cc standard driver.? Clear insanity.....LOL!

Edited May 9, 2022 by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

After watching the Wells Fargo golf tournament .....do anybody disagree that roll out has a lot to do with distance off the tee? Can we agree about that?

[oikos1]

Haha!  They already make exactly what Miles advocates: (I'm sure they'll be in pros bags soon)

 

 

 

[clevited]

11 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Haha!  They already make exactly what Miles advocates: (I'm sure they'll be in pros bags soon)

 

 

 

 

Lol, 15 degrees, its a 3w/hybrid.

[ThinkingPlus]

9 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

After watching the Wells Fargo golf tournament .....do anybody disagree that roll out has a lot to do with distance off the tee? Can we agree about that?

I think everyone will agree.  The issue isn't so much with distance, but with playing style or strategy.  When rough as a penalty became devalued or was recognized as such, the RBs and specifically the USGA, have been going nuts trying to return the game to a 'fairways must be hit to score' approach.

 

They initially thought eliminating square grooves would be a quick fix and they could get on with identifying the best players, but that action failed miserably.  Now it's the ball and distance in general that must be quashed.  However, a true test must be played under fast and firm conditions to preserve shot value and strategic lines of play.  Make it soft and hitting fairways becomes to easy and all that lush rough goes to waste.

 

So the RBs must have their cake and eat it too.  Setups must be firm and fast, but nerf the ball or other equipment such that traditional venues can still provide a stern enough test. It is a philosophical debate over wants not needs.

Edited May 10, 2022 by ThinkingPlus
Incorrect word...

[Simpsonia]

The other thing that needs to be kept in mind, and get's confused, is that there are really two distinct categories of rollbackers.

 

The first are those concerned purely with the historical courses. Both Jack and Tiger have expressed some willingness to have some sort of rollback to protect older courses from becoming too irrelevant. However, it must be noted that the only suggestions coming out of this camp is surrounding a limited flight ball, that would take 10-15% distance off everyone's shot. This would keep historical fairway features still relevant, but otherwise keep the game pretty much exactly the same. I can actually get on board with this to a degree. Ideally, this would be venue controlled, ie if a short course like Pebble comes out with a "Pebble" ball that takes 10% off flight for tour events there. 

 

The second category of rollbackers are those who are obsessed with the past, and think that if you aren't hitting a hickory shafted 3-iron blade as your approach on every par-4, then you aren't playing real golf. Hence this invention of dumb terms like "toaster on a stick".  They probably also report you to the marshal if you aren't wearing a tucked in collared shirt (tie optional, this is 2022 afterall). 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Simpsonia

[gvogel]

18 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think everything will agree.  The issue isn't so much with distance, but with playing style or strategy.  When rough as a penalty became devalued or was recognized as such, the RBs and specifically the USGA, have been going nuts trying to return the game to a 'fairways must be hit to score' approach.

 

They initially thought eliminating square grooves would be a quick fix and they could get on with identifying the best players, but that action failed miserably.  Now it's the ball and distance in general that must be quashed.  However, a true test must be played under fast and firm conditions to preserve shot value and strategic lines of play.  Make it soft and hitting fairways becomes to easy and all that lush rough goes to waste.

 

So the RBs must have their cake and eat it too.  Setups must be firm and fast, but nerf the ball or other equipment such that traditional venues can still provide a stern enough test. It is a philosophical debate over wants not needs.

I agree with you that it might be a philosophical debate about the play of the game.  But it also might be a debate about course length, water, greenskeeping and land.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, gvogel said:

I agree with you that it might be a philosophical debate about the play of the game.  But it also might be a debate about course length, water, greenskeeping and land.

 

But when you take into account that the object of the game is just to get the ball in the hole in as few shots as possible, that golfers have different capabilities that allow them to tackle a course much more differently vs another and it is unrealistic to think you can design a course that makes everyone have to hit feathered 3i into a par 4 green, you understand that the whole "courses forced to be longer" talking point is a load of bull and therefore not a point at all.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I agree with you that it might be a philosophical debate about the play of the game.  But it also might be a debate about course length, water, greenskeeping and land.

Only if you believe courses must be lengthened to remain viable which is back to philosophy and wants vs. needs.

[gvogel]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

The other thing that needs to be kept in mind, and get's confused, is that there are really two distinct categories of rollbackers.

 

The first are those concerned purely with the historical courses. Both Jack and Tiger have expressed some willingness to have some sort of rollback to protect older courses from becoming too irrelevant. However, it must be noted that the only suggestions coming out of this camp is surrounding a limited flight ball, that would take 10-15% distance off everyone's shot. This would keep historical fairway features still relevant, but otherwise keep the game pretty much exactly the same. I can actually get on board with this to a degree. Ideally, this would be venue controlled, ie if a short course like Pebble comes out with a "Pebble" ball that takes 10% off flight for tour events there. 

 

The second category of rollbackers are those who are obsessed with the past, and think that if you aren't hitting a hickory shafted 3-iron blade as your approach on every par-4, then you aren't playing real golf. Hence this invention of dumb terms like "toaster on a stick".  They probably also report you to the marshal if you aren't wearing a tucked in collared shirt (tie optional, this is 2022 afterall). 

I think that you are over-simplifying those of us who are "obsessed" with the past.  A hickory shafted 3-iron blade is great if you are competing in a hickory shafted, pre 1930 competition.  But realistically I support steel or graphite shafted irons, blades or game improvement.  I support metal headed drivers and fairway woods, but think that steel would be the limit.  Leave titanium for the aerospace industry.  And I support a ball that can be made with centered cores, and newly developed materials on the outside so that the ball is not ruined by a thinned shot, and can still spin.  Just tone it back to 1970 distance levels.

[Titleist99]

36 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think everything will agree.  The issue isn't so much with distance, but with playing style or strategy.  When rough as a penalty became devalued or was recognized as such, the RBs and specifically the USGA, have been going nuts trying to return the game to a 'fairways must be hit to score' approach.

 

They initially thought eliminating square grooves would be a quick fix and they could get on with identifying the best players, but that action failed miserably.  Now it's the ball and distance in general that must be quashed.  However, a true test must be played under fast and firm conditions to preserve shot value and strategic lines of play.  Make it soft and hitting fairways becomes to easy and all that lush rough goes to waste.

 

So the RBs must have their cake and eat it too.  Setups must be firm and fast, but nerf the ball or other equipment such that traditional venues can still provide a stern enough test. It is a philosophical debate over wants not needs.

Some how we must get those pesky announcers to stop telling us what club the Pros are hitting into the greens and this debate will go away.......then the RBs can fantasize players hitting one irons into par4s. LOL! (sarcasm)

[MUNIGRIT]

Does anyone find it funny that Jack and Tiger are ok with roll backs now that they aren't at the top of their games and into course design now? They were ok with bomb and gouge when they were the ones doing it but now they can save money on course design and protect their records a bit we have to roll it back. 

[Simpsonia]

32 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I think that you are over-simplifying those of us who are "obsessed" with the past.  A hickory shafted 3-iron blade is great if you are competing in a hickory shafted, pre 1930 competition.  But realistically I support steel or graphite shafted irons, blades or game improvement.  I support metal headed drivers and fairway woods, but think that steel would be the limit.  Leave titanium for the aerospace industry.  And I support a ball that can be made with centered cores, and newly developed materials on the outside so that the ball is not ruined by a thinned shot, and can still spin.  Just tone it back to 1970 distance levels.

 

So essentially an arbitrary line drawn in the technological sand, so to speak. If distance is your only concern, why draw your line around materials and club size, when distance reductions can most easily, most consistently, and most cost effectively be accomplished by changes to the ball alone. The only reason to change the other aspects of equipment, is if you think that hitting a golf ball is too easy, and that the game should be much harder for everyone who plays it (including amateurs). 

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

The other thing that needs to be kept in mind, and get's confused, is that there are really two distinct categories of rollbackers.

 

The first are those concerned purely with the historical courses. Both Jack and Tiger have expressed some willingness to have some sort of rollback to protect older courses from becoming too irrelevant. However, it must be noted that the only suggestions coming out of this camp is surrounding a limited flight ball, that would take 10-15% distance off everyone's shot. This would keep historical fairway features still relevant, but otherwise keep the game pretty much exactly the same. I can actually get on board with this to a degree. Ideally, this would be venue controlled, ie if a short course like Pebble comes out with a "Pebble" ball that takes 10% off flight for tour events there. 

 

The second category of rollbackers are those who are obsessed with the past, and think that if you aren't hitting a hickory shafted 3-iron blade as your approach on every par-4, then you aren't playing real golf. Hence this invention of dumb terms like "toaster on a stick".  They probably also report you to the marshal if you aren't wearing a tucked in collared shirt (tie optional, this is 2022 afterall). 

What does the following players all have in common:

 

Old Tom Morris

Walter Hagen

Bobby Jones

Jack Nicklaus 

Tiger Woods

 

They all said that distance was killing the game and fear courses of old was in line to becoming obsolete. Golf is fine and it will be fine well into the future if left alone to evolve.       IMO

[clevited]

49 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So essentially an arbitrary line drawn in the technological sand, so to speak. If distance is your only concern, why draw your line around materials and club size, when distance reductions can most easily, most consistently, and most cost effectively be accomplished by changes to the ball alone. The only reason to change the other aspects of equipment, is if you think that hitting a golf ball is too easy, and that the game should be much harder for everyone who plays it (including amateurs). 

 

I watched Keegan Bradley have no issues hitting bad driver shots yesterday.  Toaster on a stick is still a difficult club to hit accurately.  Gotto get your path and face to path right along with strike.  No easy task.  Don't think the game needs to get any harder for anyone.  The goal for the RBs ultimately is to grow the game, not return it to the stone age.

[Golferpaul]

22 hours ago, So_Cal said:

Great response.  I respect what you said.  Modern golf is like the NBA playing on eight foot rims IMO.  

Good point, but the NBA has never raised their rim height despite the huge increase in players ability to dunk the ball.

 

Rolling back the golf ball would be like the NBA raising the rim to eleven feet.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Golferpaul
typo

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Does anyone find it funny that Jack and Tiger are ok with roll backs now that they aren't at the top of their games and into course design now? They were ok with bomb and gouge when they were the ones doing it but now they can save money on course design and protect their records a bit we have to roll it back. 

Rory has come out in favor of some kinds of restrictions. 

[gvogel]

2 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Good point, but the NBA has never raised their rim height despite the huge increase in players ability to dunk the ball.

 

Rolling back the golf ball would be like the NBA raising the rim to nine feet.

Fortunately, pro golf has more of a soul than pro basketball.

[Golferpaul]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Fortunately, pro golf has more of a soul than pro basketball.

Now that there is funny.

 

Isn't it interesting that the cheapest solution and the only one that could be implemented next week is being ignored?  Just water the fairways and let the grass grow taller.  Problem solved for a few more years.

[farmer]

Hmm, basketball goals are 10 feet.  Rolling back the ball would be like raising the goal to 11 feet.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, farmer said:

Hmm, basketball goals are 10 feet.  Rolling back the ball would be like raising the goal to 11 feet.

Don't stop him.  He's on a roll.

[Golferpaul]

3 minutes ago, farmer said:

Hmm, basketball goals are 10 feet.  Rolling back the ball would be like raising the goal to 11 feet.

Oops.  Typo.  I agree.

[Titleist99]

12 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I watched Keegan Bradley have no issues hitting bad driver shots yesterday.  Toaster on a stick is still a difficult club to hit accurately.  Gotto get your path and face to path right along with strike.  No easy task.  Don't think the game needs to get any harder for anyone.  The goal for the RBs ultimately is to grow the game, not return it to the stone age.

LOL! ....I was thinking the same thing.....I saw a lot of bad off line shots yesterday. All I could think of was how can any rational person call golf easy for the Pros. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

6 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Now that there is funny.

 

Isn't it interesting that the cheapest solution and the only one that could be implemented next week is being ignored?  Just water the fairways and let the grass grow taller.  Problem solved for a few more years.

I agree with possibly raising the grass height but you can’t just water the fairways with the sustainability push and that effectively makes them easier to hit. Firm conditions are preferred for shot values.

[Titleist99]

9 minutes ago, farmer said:

Hmm, basketball goals are 10 feet.  Rolling back the ball would be like raising the goal to 11 feet.

LOL! ......John Wooden of UCLA tried to get them to raise the basket because of the influx of dunkers. Thank goodness they didn't listen to him.

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I agree with possibly raising the grass height but you can’t just water the fairways with the sustainability push and that effectively makes them easier to hit. Firm conditions are preferred for shot values.

Yesterday the players had no trouble missing fairways.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

Yesterday the players had no trouble missing fairways.

 

So you saw some guys miss fairways and that negates my point or?

[clevited]

11 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I agree with possibly raising the grass height but you can’t just water the fairways with the sustainability push and that effectively makes them easier to hit. Firm conditions are preferred for shot values.

 

Don't most courses that did decide to lengthen primarily do it via further back tee box?  If that is true, doesn't that mean that the quantity of playing surface really hasn't changed for most courses?  If sustainability means they can't grown their grass, then the future of golf is artificial turf!