distance debate

[oikos1]

Well this should make Miles smile: (apologies if already posted, it's hard to keep up)

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-signals-a-significant-step-toward-curtailing-distance

 

"The notice also looks at changing the rules on clubheads, again in ways that could restrict performance among elite golfers but help recreational players. Specifically, the ruling bodies suggested instituting “model local rules” that would reduce the spring-like effect in drivers and reduce the moment of inertia (MOI) on drivers, but only for those used in elite male competitions. The goal would be “to enhance the reward of a central impact,” the notice reads. That might mean smaller driver heads being played on tour."

 

This is interesting as well:

 

Specifically, the ruling bodies put forth the idea of eliminating the other primary golf ball test, what’s known as the initial velocity test. That test has been used for more than 80 years, and it essentially measures how fast balls come off the clubface, not how far they fly. Eliminating it could help slower swingers get more energy out of the ball.

 

“Manufacturers have been after us for a very long to get rid of that,” Spitzer said. “It doesn’t act as a governor to the hard balls that are used primarily by good players and on tour. What it did do was act as a governor for the balls that are very soft that a lot of slow-swing players prefer. And by getting rid of that we believe it’s going to allow a tremendous amount of innovation space for manufacturers to remove that governor and maybe get a little extra ball speed exclusively for the slower swingers. So they might actually benefit from the way we’re headed here.”

[Titleist99]

48 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Probably the most famous plaque is Hogan’s one iron into the par 4 18th at Merion, yes a par 4 requiring a long iron shot.  They probably wouldn’t have put “flip wedge” on the plaque if that’s all he had in.  JMO

Dear Sir: They have plaques for putting......

[clevited]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

Well this should make Miles smile: (apologies if already posted, it's hard to keep up)

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-signals-a-significant-step-toward-curtailing-distance

 

"The notice also looks at changing the rules on clubheads, again in ways that could restrict performance among elite golfers but help recreational players. Specifically, the ruling bodies suggested instituting “model local rules” that would reduce the spring-like effect in drivers and reduce the moment of inertia (MOI) on drivers, but only for those used in elite male competitions. The goal would be “to enhance the reward of a central impact,” the notice reads. That might mean smaller driver heads being played on tour."

 

This is interesting as well:

 

Specifically, the ruling bodies put forth the idea of eliminating the other primary golf ball test, what’s known as the initial velocity test. That test has been used for more than 80 years, and it essentially measures how fast balls come off the clubface, not how far they fly. Eliminating it could help slower swingers get more energy out of the ball.

 

“Manufacturers have been after us for a very long to get rid of that,” Spitzer said. “It doesn’t act as a governor to the hard balls that are used primarily by good players and on tour. What it did do was act as a governor for the balls that are very soft that a lot of slow-swing players prefer. And by getting rid of that we believe it’s going to allow a tremendous amount of innovation space for manufacturers to remove that governor and maybe get a little extra ball speed exclusively for the slower swingers. So they might actually benefit from the way we’re headed here.”

 

I find all of that to be a hot load of garbage.  Not sure how they will determine head size or moi but they are going to have to test it very thoroughly to figure out what actually works.  If its equivalent in technology and size to a modern fairway wood but with driver loft, I am very doubtful it will do much of anything.

 

I know the RBs are aware that the golfing population at large will end up inadvertently adopting the new drivers as what the pros use sell clubs.  Eventually I believe the pro model size will be all you can buy and the rest would be in that same market at the non conforming clubs are today.  This would happen if the tour adopts the model rule like they did the idiotic length rule.

 

The ball thing is a real head scratcher.  Higher speed players actually lose efficiency regarding ball speed to swing speed ratio or smash factor.  Slower speed players have always enjoyed higher smash factors so this is silly.  They are going to basically make short knockers get free mph?  Why?  Makes no sense unless someone can point to me where I might be misunderstanding.

Edited May 17, 2022 by clevited

[ThinkingPlus]

Well, all us slow swingers will lose less distance than the pros so we got that going for us.  Also, the as predicted MLR Nerf, but surprisingly to the driver rather than the ball.  Head size and MOI are diversionary.  Modifications to the "spring like effect" is lawyer speak for lower COR. 

 

How low will they go?  Tour pros want to know.  Will the LPGA adopt the MLR as well despite the "elite male" rhetoric?  They knuckled immediately on driver length.  Interesting times indeed.

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Well, all us slow swingers will lose less distance than the pros so we got that going for us.  Also, the as predicted MLR Nerf, but surprisingly to the driver rather than the ball.  Head size and MOI are diversionary.  Modifications to the "spring like effect" is lawyer speak for lower COR. 

 

How low will they go?  Tour pros want to know.  Will the LPGA adopt the MLR as well despite the "elite male" rhetoric?  They knuckled immediately on driver length.  Interesting times indeed.

 

Thing that kills me, they won't be doing enough to limit distance to the point where this won't come up again.  They would literally have to make the driver a lolipop on a stick imo to get the desired effect along with the ball nerf (Ok not literally but you see what I am saying I think).  

 

It is all theatre, and so they can say "See! We did something!" Imo. 

[Simpsonia]

8 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Thing that kills me, they won't be doing enough to limit distance to the point where this won't come up again.  They would literally have to make the driver a lolipop on a stick imo to get the desired effect along with the ball nerf (Ok not literally but you see what I am saying I think).  

 

It is all theatre, and so they can say "See! We did something!" Imo. 

 

I actually don't think continuing distance gains won't be nearly as dramatic in the future. I believe that someone like Kyle Berkshire is at or pretty close to maxing out the human potential for clubhead/ball speed. Now it's possible that in the future there may be a kid out there who learns to swing like him but can still hit 50%+ FIR, and have a good short game, which will be a massive advantage and could potentially dominate the tour. But, I don't think we're going to continue to see the same ongoing linear distance gains, especially with COR limits. With COR/CT limits, the only real way to get faster ballspeed is with faster clubspeed, and I think that's where we're close to maxing out natural human potential (barring some sort of natural phenomenon with Michael Phelps-like physique). 

 

Now I'll admit there is plenty of distance potential between Berkshire's 220mph ballspeed max if face technology made that ball playable and the Tour's long avg of ~190mph, but I personally don't think it's as attainable as the RBers seem think is inevitable. 

[clevited]

19 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I actually don't think continuing distance gains won't be nearly as dramatic in the future. I believe that someone like Kyle Berkshire is at or pretty close to maxing out the human potential for clubhead/ball speed. Now it's possible that in the future there may be a kid out there who learns to swing like him but can still hit 50%+ FIR, and have a good short game, which will be a massive advantage and could potentially dominate the tour. But, I don't think we're going to continue to see the same ongoing linear distance gains, especially with COR limits. With COR/CT limits, the only real way to get faster ballspeed is with faster clubspeed, and I think that's where we're close to maxing out natural human potential (barring some sort of natural phenomenon with Michael Phelps-like physique). 

 

Now I'll admit there is plenty of distance potential between Berkshire's 220mph ballspeed max if face technology made that ball playable and the Tour's long avg of ~190mph, but I personally don't think it's as attainable as the RBers seem think is inevitable. 

 

There really hasn't been distance gains for basically 20 years now.  You can only get so much out of X ball speed.   The limits are working.  The difference is that players are on average gaining due in large part to just optimizing an unoptimized launch, and or working on speed to gain some more advantage.  The nice thing is, the courses that they play on tour tend to keep the average of even the longest player at bay.  Bryson is right at that longest tour average of 315 ish yards (that is what it roughly averages over the last 20 years for the longest player for the year, it goes a little higher, and a little lower over time).  There are just more and more players getting to that max.  Some of those guys have a much higher ceiling while others operate close to their max.  For instance, Bryson has about 15 mph more bs on tap if he really went after it and that is with his playing driver where as Rory is pretty close to his limit (these are from my efforts to find maximums for these guys, so it is my best estimate).

 

Berkshire is a very good golfer.  He is a plus handicap (pretty sure), and has many videos of him playing the tips at some really hard courses.  He very often doesn't hit driver off the tee and he is very accurate with his play driver and can still hit 210 plus ball speed on the course.  It just isn't the smart play to always whip out driver.  He hits his 2i a ton, and doesn't carry any fairway woods I don't think.

 

He is just an example of why I feel strongly that distance is naturally capped.  Heck, they don't even take an actual average of all the par 4s and 5s on courses.  My guess is they only take par 5s and or wide open long par 4s.  If they actually took an average of all holes, average driving distance would be much less than the 295 ish it is today.  These guys hit fairway woods off the tee, or hybrids, or long irons much more than people realize.  

 

Just to add another thought of mine to this post that I have frequently brought up but never hurts to bring up again for new eyeballs to consider.  If you roll back distance lets say, 5%, well that makes these guys with untapped speed to have more incentive to use it thus bringing us back to where we started.  If you move it back 15-20%, well then, the longest of the long will still be pegging that natural course limit.  The difference is, the average will indeed go down, for a time. It will begin creeping back up again, all the while people will complain about the top 10 longest drivers having an unfair advantage and how they don't have skill etc etc.  I mean, I have thought all of this out and it is all so clear to me.  If you roll back distance, you just change the type of player you will inevitably get on tour to become essentially a world long drive pro but with a solid game through the rest of the bag.  The gap between an am and pro is even greater, and the same complaining occurs.

 

Alternatively, you can make the driver so hard to hit that nobody would use it.  Instead you might see 3 woods evolve to basically drivers that circumvent the rules because well, its a 3w by label.  The other option is to make it so the harder you hit the ball the more it spins and remove any ability to mitigate that through technology or technique.  How you do that, I am not entirely sure but you would basically have to make equipment crappy to do so.  

 

it is all a big, unnecessary can of worms they are try to open.  Its like the end of Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark when they open the Ark of the Covenant.  That is how I view the RBs, they are idiots about to open the ARK.

Edited May 17, 2022 by clevited

[oikos1]

25 minutes ago, clevited said:

Instead you might see 3 woods evolve to basically drivers that circumvent the rules because well, its a 3w by label.

 

Yes sir.  Equipment manufacturers are in need of a new sales product.  Don't know if the carbon face will become a thing, but "re-naming" and tweaking existing models makes for a nice, new shiny toy.

[MUNIGRIT]

Brandel was talking about Tigers tee Accuracy from 1997 until 2002. Just under 70 percent fairways hit using smaller headed driver and that old Titleist 3 wood. His driving Accuracy really dropped once he put the graphite shafts and bigger headed driver. It could be just his swing changed a bit to try and avoid the big miss that he never really got out of or the knee snap to make career longer but still he was more accurate with the old steel shafts and small heads.

[Titleist99]

Kyle Berkshire only has to get one ball in the grid in Long Drive.....LOL! Kyle is currently a plus 3. I think that he'd give up all that length to become a plus 5, just to play on the Korn Ferry Tour.

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, oikos1 said:

 

Yes sir.  Equipment manufacturers are in need of a new sales product.  Don't know if the carbon face will become a thing, but "re-naming" and tweaking existing models makes for a nice, new shiny toy.

Watching Tiger right now......Is his driver carbon faced? His driver looks like it's 550cc.....LOL!

[gvogel]

15 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Well this should make Miles smile: (apologies if already posted, it's hard to keep up)

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-signals-a-significant-step-toward-curtailing-distance

 

"The notice also looks at changing the rules on clubheads, again in ways that could restrict performance among elite golfers but help recreational players. Specifically, the ruling bodies suggested instituting “model local rules” that would reduce the spring-like effect in drivers and reduce the moment of inertia (MOI) on drivers, but only for those used in elite male competitions. The goal would be “to enhance the reward of a central impact,” the notice reads. That might mean smaller driver heads being played on tour."

 

This is interesting as well:

 

Specifically, the ruling bodies put forth the idea of eliminating the other primary golf ball test, what’s known as the initial velocity test. That test has been used for more than 80 years, and it essentially measures how fast balls come off the clubface, not how far they fly. Eliminating it could help slower swingers get more energy out of the ball.

 

“Manufacturers have been after us for a very long to get rid of that,” Spitzer said. “It doesn’t act as a governor to the hard balls that are used primarily by good players and on tour. What it did do was act as a governor for the balls that are very soft that a lot of slow-swing players prefer. And by getting rid of that we believe it’s going to allow a tremendous amount of innovation space for manufacturers to remove that governor and maybe get a little extra ball speed exclusively for the slower swingers. So they might actually benefit from the way we’re headed here.”

If you have been paying attention to the distance debate, there is nothing new here.  The ideas have been leaked before.  Ball reduction through higher swing speed testing for overall distance, reduced spring like effect (COR), and reduced MOI (smaller driver heads).

 

By the way, if they reduce COR for drivers, they will also do it for 2-woods (which might become more fashionable, see Sam Snead), 3-woods and the rest of the metal woods.

 

The other thing about reducing driver head size is that would effectively reduce driver shaft length.  I do not think that anyone would want to hit a small driver with a 46" shaft, but of course that would depend on what the head size limit would be.

[oikos1]

21 minutes ago, gvogel said:

If you have been paying attention to the distance debate, there is nothing new here.  The ideas have been leaked before.  Ball reduction through higher swing speed testing for overall distance, reduced spring like effect (COR), and reduced MOI (smaller driver heads).

 

By the way, if they reduce COR for drivers, they will also do it for 2-woods (which might become more fashionable, see Sam Snead), 3-woods and the rest of the metal woods.

 

The other thing about reducing driver head size is that would effectively reduce driver shaft length.  I do not think that anyone would want to hit a small driver with a 46" shaft, but of course that would depend on what the head size limit would be.

Well then, it looks like you've written three paragraphs of "nothing new".  Nice work.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

2 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Brandel was talking about Tigers tee Accuracy from 1997 until 2002. Just under 70 percent fairways hit using smaller headed driver and that old Titleist 3 wood. His driving Accuracy really dropped once he put the graphite shafts and bigger headed driver. It could be just his swing changed a bit to try and avoid the big miss that he never really got out of or the knee snap to make career longer but still he was more accurate with the old steel shafts and small heads.

 

Tiger has always had a propensity to hit foul balls with the driver. Those numbers don't really account for how often he dropped back to the stinger in those days. 1999-2000 were the only years he was better than middle of the pack or worse accuracy-wise and it was (arguably) the greatest golf ever played. Longer shafts/lower spin/more speed just tend to exacerbate misses, look at the trend across the tour, accuracy has steadily fallen as guys have gotten longer. 

 

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

There really hasn't been distance gains for basically 20 years now.  You can only get so much out of X ball speed.   The limits are working.  The difference is that players are on average gaining due in large part to just optimizing an unoptimized launch, and or working on speed to gain some more advantage.  The nice thing is, the courses that they play on tour tend to keep the average of even the longest player at bay.  Bryson is right at that longest tour average of 315 ish yards (that is what it roughly averages over the last 20 years for the longest player for the year, it goes a little higher, and a little lower over time).  There are just more and more players getting to that max.  Some of those guys have a much higher ceiling while others operate close to their max.  For instance, Bryson has about 15 mph more bs on tap if he really went after it and that is with his playing driver where as Rory is pretty close to his limit (these are from my efforts to find maximums for these guys, so it is my best estimate).

 

Berkshire is a very good golfer.  He is a plus handicap (pretty sure), and has many videos of him playing the tips at some really hard courses.  He very often doesn't hit driver off the tee and he is very accurate with his play driver and can still hit 210 plus ball speed on the course.  It just isn't the smart play to always whip out driver.  He hits his 2i a ton, and doesn't carry any fairway woods I don't think.

 

He is just an example of why I feel strongly that distance is naturally capped.  Heck, they don't even take an actual average of all the par 4s and 5s on courses.  My guess is they only take par 5s and or wide open long par 4s.  If they actually took an average of all holes, average driving distance would be much less than the 295 ish it is today.  These guys hit fairway woods off the tee, or hybrids, or long irons much more than people realize.  

 

Just to add another thought of mine to this post that I have frequently brought up but never hurts to bring up again for new eyeballs to consider.  If you roll back distance lets say, 5%, well that makes these guys with untapped speed to have more incentive to use it thus bringing us back to where we started.  If you move it back 15-20%, well then, the longest of the long will still be pegging that natural course limit.  The difference is, the average will indeed go down, for a time. It will begin creeping back up again, all the while people will complain about the top 10 longest drivers having an unfair advantage and how they don't have skill etc etc.  I mean, I have thought all of this out and it is all so clear to me.  If you roll back distance, you just change the type of player you will inevitably get on tour to become essentially a world long drive pro but with a solid game through the rest of the bag.  The gap between an am and pro is even greater, and the same complaining occurs.

 

Alternatively, you can make the driver so hard to hit that nobody would use it.  Instead you might see 3 woods evolve to basically drivers that circumvent the rules because well, its a 3w by label.  The other option is to make it so the harder you hit the ball the more it spins and remove any ability to mitigate that through technology or technique.  How you do that, I am not entirely sure but you would basically have to make equipment crappy to do so.  

 

it is all a big, unnecessary can of worms they are try to open.  Its like the end of Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark when they open the Ark of the Covenant.  That is how I view the RBs, they are idiots about to open the ARK.

 

I'm not sure how you can argue it's capped other than players increasing their own speed but if we change the cap they will magically start obtaining bigger increases than what we see year to year now. I don't think the comment about untapped power is self-evident. I also I don't even necessarily disagree about distance potential between the two eras, though I think there has definitely been refinement in the balls and heads. Regarding the world long drive pro, I would say there is probably a ceiling where you can play effectively at a tour level, maybe someone will come along that puts it all together and we get another dominant player. But I don't see how that isn't already incentivized. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[clevited]

I hadn't seen those particular thoughts of the RBs till oikos posted.  I have only seen them regurgitated in some form by others claiming them to be their ideas or the ideas of has been tour pros.  I honestly didn't think they would entertain such stuff because I thought their whole focus was the ball as it was supposedly the easiest thing to change.  Now it has evolved into a bunch more garbage.

 

The ball thing made sense, it was just a matter of how much to roll it back to get the desired effect (of course I am not on board with any change, just entertaining the idea from a standpoint of "would it work").

[gvogel]

33 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Well then, it looks like you've written three paragraphs of "nothing new".  Nice work.

You're welcome.

[gvogel]

14 minutes ago, clevited said:

I hadn't seen those particular thoughts of the RBs till oikos posted.  I have only seen them regurgitated in some form by others claiming them to be their ideas or the ideas of has been tour pros.  I honestly didn't think they would entertain such stuff because I thought their whole focus was the ball as it was supposedly the easiest thing to change.  Now it has evolved into a bunch more garbage.

 

The ball thing made sense, it was just a matter of how much to roll it back to get the desired effect (of course I am not on board with any change, just entertaining the idea from a standpoint of "would it work").

I had seen these proposals somewhere else, and I thought that anyone following this thread would have been aware of them.  I just looked through recent posts by Geoff Shackleford to see if I got the information there, but I could not find it.  But I am sure that I read it somewhere.

[smashdn]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

There really hasn't been distance gains for basically 20 years now. 

 

it is all a big, unnecessary can of worms they are try to open.  Its like the end of Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark when they open the Ark of the Covenant.  That is how I view the RBs, they are idiots about to open the ARK.

 

 

The very first line I immediately went to the stats on PGAT website and pulled 2002 up and compared it to 2021 (full season of data). But before I tore in, I read the rest of your post.

 

I am glad you label us idiots.  Pretty rich when the bulk of us advocating for action (roll back of equipment included) have their reasoning as, "keeping courses (most of us have never and will never play) from having to continually add yardage," "keeping hazards that were once in play and a factor still so given technological gains," "lessening the footprint of and required inputs into maintaining a golf course," and "the ability to provide venues that continue to present to the very best golfers in the world a test of not only execution but of decision making and perhaps strategy."  These certainly seem like the concerns of idiots.

 

Regarding your Ark of the Covenant comment, stasis is not letting anything out.  I am not advocating for opening said ark or pandora's box or whatever, I am for cramming stuff back in in order to hopefully affect those things I listed above.  But I'm just an idiot.

 

What in the world happened between 2002 and 2003 regarding driving distance?  Kuehne really pull up the whole tour?

[clevited]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

 

The very first line I immediately went to the stats on PGAT website and pulled 2002 up and compared it to 2021 (full season of data). But before I tore in, I read the rest of your post.

 

I am glad you label us idiots.  Pretty rich when the bulk of us advocating for action (roll back of equipment included) have their reasoning as, "keeping courses (most of us have never and will never play) from having to continually add yardage," "keeping hazards that were once in play and a factor still so given technological gains," "lessening the footprint of and required inputs into maintaining a golf course," and "the ability to provide venues that continue to present to the very best golfers in the world a test of not only execution but of decision making and perhaps strategy."  These certainly seem like the concerns of idiots.

 

Regarding your Ark of the Covenant comment, stasis is not letting anything out.  I am not advocating for opening said ark or pandora's box or whatever, I am for cramming stuff back in in order to hopefully affect those things I listed above.  But I'm just an idiot.

 

What in the world happened between 2002 and 2003 regarding driving distance?  Kuehne really pull up the whole tour?

 

RBs = Ruling Bodies, not Roll Backers.  I wouldn't call you an idiot.

 

Edit:  Need to comment on the rest of your post, I just wanted to get that up right away that I wasn't calling you or any roll backers idiots.  

 

-Courses continually adding yardage I maintain is a false talking point.  There is no need unless you want golf optics to be a certain way for a very small group of people.  I therefore maintain it is not a reason for a roll back as it is a voluntary and perceived need not a real one.  A course is a course and because some people can play it differently than intended, doesn't mean it should be changed.  If they have the money and want to, go for it but then the course owners that do that can't complain.

 

-Testing the worlds best golfers is up to the tour not the USGA.  The tour can make its own courses as hard or as easy as they want and test it whatever manner they choose.  They can make it play to a large degree how they want, but they cannot control everything and they should not otherwise you might as well tell them what shot to hit, with what club and when.  The object of the game is to get the ball in the hole and I maintain that the people that do it the best, are executing on their strategy and that will mean they often play some pretty simple and to some, boring golf.  Its simpler to hit it straight than it is to attempt to bend it around the corner when even the best can't control how much that moves exactly.  The percentage play is to not do that unless you have no choice aka a scrambling shot out of trouble.  The percentage play is to leave yourself with as short of an iron in as possible because you can more easily hold the green and you can get it closer to the hole.  The guys that execute that strategy make it look super easy when in reality, as I have said a million times, hitting a driver as hard as they do and controlling it is extremely hard even with the "toasters on a stick"

 

-My opening of the ark analogies is what I feel will happen to the game should they dive into all the garbage they are proposing.  Bifurcation, smaller heads that may or may not do a single thing, ball changes that hurt faster guy more than the shorter guy instead of equally, changing the COR back to something different.  As I stated, none of that will actually do anything anyways.  We are going to be right back here with these threads.  I have evolved my point of view to include that even a 15 or 20% ball speed nerf would lead us right back here in time.  

 

As far as Kuehne, I don't know what happened to him but a lot of guys back then could hit it as far as Kuehne if they wanted to and sought it.  I would imagine many were not interested in changing how they hit the ball, nor were they interested in seeking more distance at the time.  They had something that served them well and they didn't change.  New generation came in with a better understanding of speed and launch conditions and could also play and the average goes up, and more REALLY long guys with a really good rest of their game start to show up.  Inevitable stuff, especially with the prize money involved getting so high.  It is gonna attract more athletic and talented people and that is a big part of where we are at today, only people dismiss the talent these people all have.

Edited May 17, 2022 by clevited

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

RBs = Ruling Bodies, not Roll Backers.  I wouldn't call you an idiot.

 

Got my acronyms mixed and my knickers in a twist there didn't I?

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Got my acronyms mixed and my knickers in a twist there didn't I?

 

It is all good, unfortunately conversations like this are extremely hard to have via text format and we all read other's post and interpret too often negatively.  We all do I am sure.

 

PS updated my post to comment on your other thoughts.

Edited May 17, 2022 by clevited

[MUNIGRIT]

Players were more accurate with persimmons and balatas. Accuracy with distance is just a skill that the rollback guys fail to acknowledge. Just like all the garbage instruction over the years has been debunked so has the importance of driving accuracy to score.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Players were more accurate with persimmons and balatas. Accuracy with distance is just a skill that the rollback guys fail to acknowledge. Just like all the garbage instruction over the years has been debunked so has the importance of driving accuracy to score.

 

Because the ball spun a lot and didn't go as far. I'll acknowledge it, I think Rahm is the best driver on tour by a large margin, I just think the ball goes too far. 

[Simpsonia]

8 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Because the ball spun a lot and didn't go as far. I'll acknowledge it, I think Rahm is the best driver on tour by a large margin, I just think the ball goes too far. 

 

I've brought it up before, and I'll bring it up again. The ball is by far and away the biggest factor in modern golf. So much so I really don't get the intense desire to rollback all the other equipment. Hitting balata with a modern driver will only suck marginally less than with a small faced steel driver due to that crazy high spin off the tee that kills distance and amplifies distance offline. Hell it might even suck worse because you're getting a higher smash factor on off-center hits which would only push mishits even further offline. 

 

Changes to the ball can accomplish everything that rollbackers say they want, reductions in distance, focus on accuracy, changes in the spin, etc, but yet the discussion always keeps coming back to driver face size for some reason. Distance reduction would be trivially easy to accomplish at very discrete intervals of say 10%, 15%, 20% less distance than a modern ProV1 simply by changing the core of the ball. 

 

So either it's about reductions in distance to keep old short courses relevant (change the ball), or there's some other nostalgic motive behind the push to rollback the other equipment, in which case I think Rollbackers who keep harping on rolling back other equipment need to admit to themselves that it's not just about distance. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

10 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I've brought it up before, and I'll bring it up again. The ball is by far and away the biggest factor in modern golf. So much so I really don't get the intense desire to rollback all the other equipment. Hitting balata with a modern driver will only suck marginally less than with a small faced steel driver due to that crazy high spin off the tee that kills distance and amplifies distance offline. Hell it might even suck worse because you're getting a higher smash factor on off-center hits which would only push mishits even further offline. 

 

Changes to the ball can accomplish everything that rollbackers say they want, reductions in distance, focus on accuracy, changes in the spin, etc, but yet the discussion always keeps coming back to driver face size for some reason. Distance reduction would be trivially easy to accomplish at very discrete intervals of say 10%, 15%, 20% less distance than a modern ProV1 simply by changing the core of the ball. 

 

So either it's about reductions in distance to keep old short courses relevant (change the ball), or there's some other nostalgic motive behind the push to rollback the other equipment, in which case I think Rollbackers who keep harping on rolling back other equipment need to admit to themselves that it's not just about distance. 

I’ve said it many times in this topic but I’d favor only a ball change if possible. One small correction is that higher spin does not make mishits go more offline.

[gvogel]

52 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

RBs = Ruling Bodies, not Roll Backers.  I wouldn't call you an idiot.

 

Edit:  Need to comment on the rest of your post, I just wanted to get that up right away that I wasn't calling you or any roll backers idiots.  

 

-Courses continually adding yardage I maintain is a false talking point.  There is no need unless you want golf optics to be a certain way for a very small group of people.  I therefore maintain it is not a reason for a roll back as it is a voluntary and perceived need not a real one.  A course is a course and because some people can play it differently than intended, doesn't mean it should be changed.  If they have the money and want to, go for it but then the course owners that do that can't complain.

 

-Testing the worlds best golfers is up to the tour not the USGA.  The tour can make its own courses as hard or as easy as they want and test it whatever manner they choose.  They can make it play to a large degree how they want, but they cannot control everything and they should not otherwise you might as well tell them what shot to hit, with what club and when.  The object of the game is to get the ball in the hole and I maintain that the people that do it the best, are executing on their strategy and that will mean they often play some pretty simple and to some, boring golf.  Its simpler to hit it straight than it is to attempt to bend it around the corner when even the best can't control how much that moves exactly.  The percentage play is to not do that unless you have no choice aka a scrambling shot out of trouble.  The percentage play is to leave yourself with as short of an iron in as possible because you can more easily hold the green and you can get it closer to the hole.  The guys that execute that strategy make it look super easy when in reality, as I have said a million times, hitting a driver as hard as they do and controlling it is extremely hard even with the "toasters on a stick"

 

-My opening of the ark analogies is what I feel will happen to the game should they dive into all the garbage they are proposing.  Bifurcation, smaller heads that may or may not do a single thing, ball changes that hurt faster guy more than the shorter guy instead of equally, changing the COR back to something different.  As I stated, none of that will actually do anything anyways.  We are going to be right back here with these threads.  I have evolved my point of view to include that even a 15 or 20% ball speed nerf would lead us right back here in time.  

 

As far as Kuehne, I don't know what happened to him but a lot of guys back then could hit it as far as Kuehne if they wanted to and sought it.  I would imagine many were not interested in changing how they hit the ball, nor were they interested in seeking more distance at the time.  They had something that served them well and they didn't change.  New generation came in with a better understanding of speed and launch conditions and could also play and the average goes up, and more REALLY long guys with a really good rest of their game start to show up.  Inevitable stuff, especially with the prize money involved getting so high.  It is gonna attract more athletic and talented people and that is a big part of where we are at today, only people dismiss the talent these people all have.

Some points.

"There is no need to unless you want golf optics to be a certain way."  You say golf optics, and I infer challenge of the course.  My guess is that you would find a lot of the very best golfers prefer a difficult golf course because it gives them the best chance to excel relative to the slightly less talented.  There was a reason that Jack Nicklaus passed up playing tournaments on shorter golf courses.  There is reason, except for previous commitments, that the best do so today.  Part of crafting a difficult golf course is having sufficient distance for the challenge.

 

"Testing the world's best golfers is up the the tour, not the USGA."  It may be that the PGA Tour could opt to keep all equipment the same as today and encourage tournament wins at -25, just like last weekend.  I happen to believe that a lot of the core golf audience would be turned off by that approach.  With past USGA President Fred Ridley at the helm of Augusta National, that would be three majors that would be played with the new condition of competition equipment.  Jack Nicklaus might also insist that the Memorial be played with the new equipment.  Sooner or later... Who knows?  I expect that over time most golfers, and golf watchers, would agree that the competition would be better.  That also includes competition between the player and the course.

 

"I have evolved my point of view to include that even a 15 or 20% ball speed nerf would lead us right back here in time."  I thought that YOU were the physics guy!  How would that be possible?

[smashdn]

40 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Players were more accurate with persimmons and balatas. Accuracy with distance is just a skill that the rollback guys fail to acknowledge. Just like all the garbage instruction over the years has been debunked so has the importance of driving accuracy to score.

 

I think I would tend to agree with the statement, "Players were more accurate when they played with persimmons and balatas."  It is hard for me to come to the conclusion that they were more accurate because they played with persimmon and balatas.  You don't take into account the other variables at play, course conditioning, set up, teaching and strategy philosophy.

 

Accuracy with distance is a huge skill.  What I will say is that to get both, distance and accuracy, is less difficult with modern equipment than with old.  Can we agree to that?

 

What would you say regarding driving accuracy if the average distance left to the green was say 30 yards further than today?  Would driving accuracy be more important (being in the fairway) for a shot from 180 yards versus 150 and 150 than from 120?

 

I watched JT hit that 5 wood the other day.  255 yards from the first cut.  In that instance what were his potential outcomes?  Duff it and roll 100 yards.  Push it right and end up in bunker or chipping area.  Pull it left and be in light rough or chipping area.  Aside from being crazy offline there was nothing about that hole that would cause him to not be as aggressive as possible.  There was no risk for him.  The worst outcome of his 5 wood shot would have been the duff (though unlikely as he is a very good wood player) and he ends up with a PW shot from the fairway or light rough to the green for his third.  I guess my point is, there is nothing with that course set up or with his game that would really make driving accuracy all that important unless he was so wayward he ended up behind a tree or something.

[clevited]

17 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Some points.

"There is no need to unless you want golf optics to be a certain way."  You say golf optics, and I infer challenge of the course.  My guess is that you would find a lot of the very best golfers prefer a difficult golf course because it gives them the best chance to excel relative to the slightly less talented.  There was a reason that Jack Nicklaus passed up playing tournaments on shorter golf courses.  There is reason, except for previous commitments, that the best do so today.  Part of crafting a difficult golf course is having sufficient distance for the challenge.

 

"Testing the world's best golfers is up the the tour, not the USGA."  It may be that the PGA Tour could opt to keep all equipment the same as today and encourage tournament wins at -25, just like last weekend.  I happen to believe that a lot of the core golf audience would be turned off by that approach.  With past USGA President Fred Ridley at the helm of Augusta National, that would be three majors that would be played with the new condition of competition equipment.  Jack Nicklaus might also insist that the Memorial be played with the new equipment.  Sooner or later... Who knows?  I expect that over time most golfers, and golf watchers, would agree that the competition would be better.  That also includes competition between the player and the course.

 

"I have evolved my point of view to include that even a 15 or 20% ball speed nerf would lead us right back here in time."  I thought that YOU were the physics guy!  How would that be possible?

 

-But you can't do that, create distance for the challenge, not when everyone on the tour plays the same tees.  There is too vast of a gulf in distance capability.  You would literally have to put pro's on different tees and tell them what club to hit to make something like what I think you imagine to occur.  Back in the day, short knockers were much more common and the long guys stood out.  You could argue that the really short knockers had more talent and weren't getting to win vs the longer guys.  It is no different today.  I maintain that its the strategy that you guys don't like more than the distance.  The same strategy will be applied with a nerfed ball, it will be the same game because you cannot possibly contain these guys, not without doing some insane changes.  You would have to force some crazy equipment rules well beyond what is being proposed to ever get that version of the game back imo.

 

-I am fine with having special tournaments that test old equipment as long as it isn't forced upon the tour players nor the average joe.  I am cool with a natural seeding of a change.  Prove that the game would be better with the changes via these special tournaments and let the masses adopt it with open hearts.  That is the way you make change without risking backlash and destruction.  Low risk, high upside if it works.  I think any existing tournaments adopting a rule is a bad idea, and is essentially forcing equipment onto the professionals and I think the backlash will be significant.

 

-I already posted on why I believe that to be true.  15-20% I predict will cause world long drive guys with game to make the tour.  I then predict they will be pegging that course mix dictated 315 yard cap I always talk about and we will see this subject come up again.  It may in fact have to be beyond 20% to make the difference desired, unless just reducing the tour average for a few decades is acceptable.  That will occur but you will likely have 10-20 world long drive guys uncorking the bottle on most every hole.  The tour short knocker as we know them today (the under 300 guy) will become even more scarce and you and I will be even further from relating to tour pros.

Edited May 17, 2022 by clevited

[clevited]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I think I would tend to agree with the statement, "Players were more accurate when they played with persimmons and balatas."  It is hard for me to come to the conclusion that they were more accurate because they played with persimmon and balatas.  You don't take into account the other variables at play, course conditioning, set up, teaching and strategy philosophy.

 

Accuracy with distance is a huge skill.  What I will say is that to get both, distance and accuracy, is less difficult with modern equipment than with old.  Can we agree to that?

 

What would you say regarding driving accuracy if the average distance left to the green was say 30 yards further than today?  Would driving accuracy be more important (being in the fairway) for a shot from 180 yards versus 150 and 150 than from 120?

 

I watched JT hit that 5 wood the other day.  255 yards from the first cut.  In that instance what were his potential outcomes?  Duff it and roll 100 yards.  Push it right and end up in bunker or chipping area.  Pull it left and be in light rough or chipping area.  Aside from being crazy offline there was nothing about that hole that would cause him to not be as aggressive as possible.  There was no risk for him.  The worst outcome of his 5 wood shot would have been the duff (though unlikely as he is a very good wood player) and he ends up with a PW shot from the fairway or light rough to the green for his third.  I guess my point is, there is nothing with that course set up or with his game that would really make driving accuracy all that important unless he was so wayward he ended up behind a tree or something.

 

"there is nothing with that course set up or with his game that would really make driving accuracy all that important unless he was so wayward he ended up behind a tree or something."

 

I propose bunkers filled with spaghetti!

 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

13 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

-But you can't do that, create distance for the challenge, not when everyone on the tour plays the same tees.  There is too vast of a gulf in distance capability.  You would literally have to put pro's on different tees and tell them what club to hit to make something like what I think you imagine to occur.  Back in the day, short knockers were much more common and the long guys stood out.  You could argue that the really short knockers had more talent and weren't getting to win vs the longer guys.  It is no different today.  I maintain that its the strategy that you guys don't like more than the distance.  The same strategy will be applied with a nerfed ball, it will be the same game because you cannot possibly contain these guys, not without doing some insane changes.  You would have to force some crazy equipment rules well beyond what is being proposed to ever get that version of the game back imo.

 

-I am fine with having special tournaments that test old equipment as long as it isn't forced upon the tour players nor the average joe.  I am cool with a natural seeding of a change.  Prove that the game would be better with the changes via these special tournaments and let the masses adopt it with open hearts.  That is the way you make change without risking backlash and destruction.  Low risk, high upside if it works.  I think any existing tournaments adopting a rule is a bad idea, and is essentially forcing equipment onto the professionals and I think the backlash will be significant.

 

-I already posted on why I believe that to be true.  15-20% I predict will cause world long drive guys with game to make the tour.  I then predict they will be pegging that course mix dictated 315 yard cap I always talk about and we will see this subject come up again.  It may in fact have to be beyond 20% to make the difference desired, unless just reducing the tour average for a few decades is acceptable.  That will occur but you will likely have 10-20 world long drive guys uncorking the bottle on most every hole.  The tour short knocker as we know them today (the under 300 guy) will become even more scarce and you and I will be even further from relating to tour pros.

 

Again, how is this not already incentivized? We already know that the closer you are to the hole the fewer number of shots you tend to take to complete the hole.