distance debate

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

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

 

 

the point being that now, due to the forgiveness of the driver, the balance of speed and skill is weighted too much towards speed. 'Athletes' now do well at pro golf because the equipment has enabled them. The skilful guys have to find another game. 

[Josh L.]

2 hours ago, dmecca2 said:

Watched Rory hit one 269 in the rough on 18 last week and the other 2 in his group hit it 320 in the fairway, but roughly carried it the same as Rory. Doesn't matter how much spin the ball has if it lands on a cart path fairway.

Bingo! Ironically the USGA, the biggest cry baby about distance, has the firmest fastest fairways every year at their tournament. You wouldn't need to hack up historic tracks to add more tee boxes if you ran your fairways at a speed that didn't produce 75+yards of roll out.  

[MtlJeff]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

the point being that now, due to the forgiveness of the driver, the balance of speed and skill is weighted too much towards speed. 'Athletes' now do well at pro golf because the equipment has enabled them. The skilful guys have to find another game. 

 

I suppose i don't really disagree with you, i guess i just don't find it as much of a problem. To each their own as everyone has different preferences as to what they enjoy watching

[storm319]

26 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think the form of the ODS has changed since 1976, but not the actual equivalent ball speeds and distances.  You are suggesting changing the ODS to rollback ball speeds to lower than the 1976 specification. That can be done as well.  I doubt the OEMs would increase drag to get a lower ball speed.  Just make a marshmallow maybe.

 

If they change the ODS to only limit ball speed at very high swing speeds you might get crappy dimple changes.

The only test methodology change to the ODS was in 2004. From what I recall from an old article that I stumbled across years ago, I believe that this update resulted in a very slight rollback rather than a perfect scale from the original. 
 

It’s frustrating when people ignorantly suggest rollback targets that would essentially deem wound balls produced 50+ years ago non-conforming as well. Some people’s perception of the differences between later wound balls and multilayer solid core balls are greatly exaggerated.

[storm319]

26 minutes ago, Josh L. said:

Bingo! Ironically the USGA, the biggest cry baby about distance, has the firmest fastest fairways every year at their tournament. You wouldn't need to hack up historic tracks to add more tee boxes if you ran your fairways at a speed that didn't produce 75+yards of roll out.  

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/jerry-tarde-long-grass/amp
 

“…the fairway height at Merion for the 1971 Open was one inch. When I repeated that to Davis, he paused and said the planned fairway height for this year's Open was .26 inches. A couple of weeks later, Davis surprisingly reversed himself and announced Merion's fairway height at .45 inches.”

[ThinkingPlus]

50 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

Sort of.

 

I'm saying keep the distance limits in the tests the same but INCREASE the ball speeds that are specified in the test procedure. 

 

 

Yes.  That would probably cause the need for increased drag.

[ThinkingPlus]

24 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The only test methodology change to the ODS was in 2004. From what I recall from an old article that I stumbled across years ago, I believe that this update resulted in a very slight rollback rather than a perfect scale from the original. 
 

It’s frustrating when people ignorantly suggest rollback targets that would essentially deem wound balls produced 50+ years ago non-conforming as well. Some people’s perception of the differences between later wound balls and multilayer solid core balls are greatly exaggerated.

They went from 296.8 yards to 320 yards.  I think the clubhead speeds were 109 mph and 120 mph respectively.  Not sure on spin rates.  Performance would go down slightly between those conditions, but not much.  Trying to rollback distance far enough to make people happy will be pre-balata and persimmon performance.  Should be fun (not).

 

The only saving grace is the balls won't be cut up oblong eggs and drivers won't weigh nearly a pound. 

[storm319]

4 hours ago, me05501 said:

 

More likely they'd boil it down to an arbitrary standard like they did with COR.

 

I can imagine a device that strikes a ball with a certain amount of force and then measures the spin or rebound force or whatever factors they decide to limit. I'd think manufacturers could engineer around that. 

Not that simple. Spin is a product of several factors in addition to club head speed including but not limited to club head delivery (path, angle of attack, face angle), the club itself (loft, bulge/roll which really impacts loft and direction on a specific location on the face), and strike location. Testing a statically significant number of combinations for each submission would be cost/time prohibitive for the USGA. 

[me05501]

3 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Not that simple. Spin is a product of several factors in addition to club head speed including but not limited to club head delivery (path, angle of attack, face angle), the club itself (loft, bulge/roll which really impacts loft and direction on a specific location on the face), and strike location. Testing a statically significant number of combinations for each submission would be cost/time prohibitive for the USGA. 

 

I get all of that, but I'm not sure that those lengths would be required to make a playable standard for impact spin.

 

A ball that spins more when struck solidly would also tend to spin more when struck under those other circumstances wouldn't it? Isn't it mostly about the core and mantel materials? 

[jvincent]

48 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

They went from 296.8 yards to 320 yards.  I think the clubhead speeds were 109 mph and 120 mph respectively.  Not sure on spin rates.  Performance would go down slightly between those conditions, but not much.  Trying to rollback distance far enough to make people happy will be pre-balata and persimmon performance.  Should be fun (not).

 

The only saving grace is the balls won't be cut up oblong eggs and drivers won't weigh nearly a pound. 

 

The current numbers are 317 yards total distance based on a 10* launch, 175 mph ball speed, 2520 RPM spin.

 

Change that to: 

 

317 yards, 17* launch, 200 mph, 2000 spin and we have a very different ball.

[toastinato]

Not sure if any of this was mentioned but there is a 0% chance of me reading every comment😂 I’ve worked at a very exclusive private golf course that holds events, and this conversation gets brought up a lot. 
 

I’ll start off by saying it’s a tough subject because lengthening a hole is like using a band aid, just going to ease the pain for a few years. Plus, it’s not easy with the properties owned by the course and most older courses can’t extend lengths. 
 

Next, I’ll say that we’ve discussed the idea of making the course more strategical… meaning, if a bunker was in play at around 280-300, and now has no effects on the newer generation, then move it🤷🏽 Put hazards and obstacles in places people are hitting 350 yard drives. Golf has always been a game of strategy, so go back to its roots. I don’t think it’s fair to take away the distance these players have and to limit it. Maybe increasing spin on the ball is a reasonable limitation. But, Just make it tougher for them. I forget which course was recently played, but there was a massive tree right in the middle of the fairway about 320 yards out… I watched 2 groups play and 4 of them went all out and ended up either in the tree or in a spot where they couldn’t go for the green and 2 of them laid up with a 3 wood and had the advantage. Obviously not the only option, but just an idea coming from someone who deals with the grounds crew and super intendant at a very well kept club that holds tournaments. 

[ThinkingPlus]

18 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

The current numbers are 317 yards total distance based on a 10* launch, 175 mph ball speed, 2520 RPM spin.

 

Change that to: 

 

317 yards, 17* launch, 200 mph, 2000 spin and we have a very different ball.

I'm not sure the dimples can be that bad, but maybe.  It will still happen as an MLR only to avoid litigation (if they can). Something like that would certainly dissuade someone from using driver.  Extra wedge for the field.

[jvincent]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I'm not sure the dimples can be that bad, but maybe.  It will still happen as an MLR only to avoid litigation (if they can). Something like that would certainly dissuade someone from using driver.  Extra wedge for the field.

 

There's a dimple configuration somewhere between a smooth ball and what we have today that I'm sure can be made to fit those parameters.

 

[mosesgolf]

Why does the USGA (every freaking year) think there is something wrong with the game.  It seems like the game is stronger than ever.  If guys were shooting 58 59 every week then maybe.  But golf is more fun to watch nowadays.  

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, jvincent said:

 

Sort of.

 

I'm saying keep the distance limits in the tests the same but INCREASE the ball speeds that are specified in the test procedure. 

 

 

When Frank Thomas thought up the Overall Distance Standard, he never contemplated that players could use big drivers to hit up on the ball, reducing spin.  So some change to the parameters is necessary.

[Santiago Golf]

Does anybody know the story of how the USGA picked the Tee Height limit (which is 4 inches)?

 

Anybody???

 

They just picked a number

 

Simple as that 

 

If the USGA would have set the tee height limit to 2 inches back when drivers where 250cc ... we would have never seen a driver at 460cc

 

The problem I see with this is right now if you don't drive the ball over 300 it is really tough to win on PGA Tour but those guys who do drive it in the 285 to 295 camp can still make a living

If the ball is rolled back and course length stays the same as it is ... those short players have no chance at keeping a card

If the ball is rolled back and the course length is made slightly shorter ... then what are we solving 

 

No Par 5 on tour plays over par ... so maybe adjust the par for tour players from 72 being the standard to 67 to 70

Scores will go up ... boom problem sloved

 

I would really like to see a tournament where they only have one par 5 and one par 3 that is over 285 yards

It would be interesting 

 

Doglegs when really tall tree and thick rough could solve the problem kinda (think of Merion), but all the golf courses have been built for the most part

 

Honestly I would really enjoy seeing the club limit being brought down to 10 clubs for the pros

 

My suggestions

1) Make the tee height limit 2 inches (I would love to see them outlaw tees in general)

2) 10 club limit

3) Only one par 5 (has be over 570 yards or a true 3 shot hole) 

4) One par 3 over 285 yards

5) Introduce a Chess Like Time Clock 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

I think that is the biggest appeal. There used to be a smaller diameter British ball      https://www.liveabout.com/british-ball-1564084

 

how much bigger would the ball need to be to increase the drag 15%?

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

I think that is the biggest appeal. There used to be a smaller diameter British ball      https://www.liveabout.com/british-ball-1564084

 

how much bigger would the ball need to be to increase the drag 15%?

Don't know, but folks would definitely notice. Anybody that routinely plays in windy conditions would be stoked (not).

[Soloman1]

I have a feeling that anyone from the USGA or the PGA Tour reading this thread (and I’m sure some are) think that we’re stupid and don’t understand things as well as they do.

 

I understand that this is not a trivial topic. It changes golf, and to repeat myself - people hate two things — the way things are now and change.

 

No one wants to screw this up and not everyone will be happy with any change. As @ThinkingPlus brings to the discussion consistently, it’s about the practicality of effects and not the emotions of the effects.

 

[jvincent]

16 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

I have a feeling that anyone from the USGA or the PGA Tour reading this thread (and I’m sure some are) think that we’re stupid and don’t understand things as well as they do.

 

I understand that this is not a trivial topic. It changes golf, and to repeat myself - people hate two things — the way things are now and change.

 

No one wants to screw this up and not everyone will be happy with any change. As @ThinkingPlus brings to the discussion consistently, it’s about the practicality of effects and not the emotions of the effects.

 

 

Any effort to reel back distance that isn't just limited to the ball will be a screw up.

 

Balls are consumables. The USGA avoids any legal issues by making the transition period long enough that people can plan and not be stuck with an inventory of golf balls.

 

If they were smart they could actually INCREASE the distance standard to 325 yards while changing the launch parameters. Super easy to spin this to the masses. No pun intended.

 

Shout it from the rooftops. We didn't roll back the ball! We increased the allowable distance!   

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, mosesgolf said:

Why does the USGA (every freaking year) think there is something wrong with the game.  It seems like the game is stronger than ever.  If guys were shooting 58 59 every week then maybe.  But golf is more fun to watch nowadays.  

But you have this faction that want to see ......one irons hit into greens on par 4's, three shot par 5's and 260 yard drives off the tee for everybody......they want to watch on television the golf that their buddies play on Saturday morning and pay a premium to the Golf Channel to do so.

 

That will not be fun to watch.

[m d g]

9 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

That would make the longer hitters have even more of an advantage.

We can't make everyone physically equal. At least it won't be driver-7 iron into par 5s for anybody. And tighten the landing zones and grow the rough...not hard to do.

[storm319]

14 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

I get all of that, but I'm not sure that those lengths would be required to make a playable standard for impact spin.

 

A ball that spins more when struck solidly would also tend to spin more when struck under those other circumstances wouldn't it? Isn't it mostly about the core and mantel materials? 

Not necessarily and that is the problem with this type of regulation. It would need to be different target regulation for each set of test variables which again would be prohibitive. Ultimately a spin minimum under a set of swing variables that would be deemed as optimal today could be circumvented by adjusting one or more of the variables which would essentially just change the definition of optimal (and players would adjust accordingly).

[oikos1]

8 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

the point being that now, due to the forgiveness of the driver, the balance of speed and skill is weighted too much towards speed. 'Athletes' now do well at pro golf because the equipment has enabled them. The skilful guys have to find another game. 

Do you have a list of "skillful" players that currently can't compete on the PGA Tour or of those who are "skillful" that have not had the opportunity to compete?

 

How are you even defining "skillful".  What a hustle if the lesser skilled players on the PGA Tour are the ones winning tournaments and all of the money.  I wonder what they would have to say about that? 🤣

[Josh L.]

8 hours ago, storm319 said:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/jerry-tarde-long-grass/amp
 

“…the fairway height at Merion for the 1971 Open was one inch. When I repeated that to Davis, he paused and said the planned fairway height for this year's Open was .26 inches. A couple of weeks later, Davis surprisingly reversed himself and announced Merion's fairway height at .45 inches.”

Merion held up well in 2012, I assume it would hold up if it was hosting this year too. 

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Do you have a list of "skillful" players that currently can't compete on the PGA Tour or of those who are "skillful" that have not had the opportunity to compete?

 

How are you even defining "skillful".  What a hustle if the lesser skilled players on the PGA Tour are the ones winning tournaments and all of the money.  I wonder what they would have to say about that? 🤣

 

We can all reel off dozens of players from pre 460 days who were incredibly unathletic but at or near the top of the game. Not a chance in the world they would have got near average tour driver speed of 115mph today.

 

Its relative. Are todays players still 'skilful' yes, of course, its a tough sport. Are they as skilled as yesteryear, with tiny hitting surfaces and unrecognisable course maintenance standards? No, of course not. They dont have to be. What they have to do, number one, is swing really fast. Number two, putt. Statistically proven, endlessly.

 

 

[dmecca2]

Hot take nowadays: Golf is perfectly fine with the parameters set in place. Make the fairways on tour not run out 50 yards and watch what it does to the data. Sure, some classic courses have become obsolete, but that's ok. That happens in a growing game. F1 doesn't race with the same cars from 10 years ago. Sports change, and just because the sport isn't the same as it was when you grew up, doesn't mean it needs to change. Courses that can adapt and host professional events (The ONLY population that this debate is about) will do that. Courses that can't adapt and grow, will still be perfectly fine courses for the other 99% of players.

[milesgiles]

12 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Hot take nowadays: Golf is perfectly fine with the parameters set in place. Make the fairways on tour not run out 50 yards and watch what it does to the data. Sure, some classic courses have become obsolete, but that's ok. That happens in a growing game. F1 doesn't race with the same cars from 10 years ago. Sports change, and just because the sport isn't the same as it was when you grew up, doesn't mean it needs to change. Courses that can adapt and host professional events (The ONLY population that this debate is about) will do that. Courses that can't adapt and grow, will still be perfectly fine courses for the other 99% of players.

 

 

hot take

 

lets find a way to find out who is best with all 14 clubs, rather than drive wedge putt. 

[dmecca2]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

hot take

 

lets find a way to find out who is best with all 14 clubs, rather than drive wedge putt. 

there are a lot of courses on the tour rotation that challenge the best players with all of the clubs in their bag. Tour pros know which courses these are and the fields (and leaderboards) tend to be stronger at these events. Problem is that there is a tournament every week and the tour needs to find courses to host every week. Not every course is suited to host the best in the game.

[milesgiles]

3 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

there are a lot of courses on the tour rotation that challenge the best players with all of the clubs in their bag. Tour pros know which courses these are and the fields (and leaderboards) tend to be stronger at these events. Problem is that there is a tournament every week and the tour needs to find courses to host every week. Not every course is suited to host the best in the game.

 

must admit cant think of a single one where they are asked to hit much more than 170 into a par 4. Whats your best example?