USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[Ashley Schaeffer]

12 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

What makes you think he isn't? You seem to be arguing in bad faith.

 

Nobody said the drivers today are automatic, but they are certainly easier to hit than before I don't think that's even debatable. I have a 975 D, a Nike Covert, and a modern driver. The difference in forgiveness is absolutely absurd one generation to the next. Now a pro will have better results I'm sure, but it is a myth that they all hit the sweet spot every time so those heel and toe shots are going to be significantly more penalized. 

 

Not arguing at all, let alone in bad faith.  Of course the drivers are more forgiving these days.  My point is that the ones who are the most vocal about it tend to be the ones who are past their primes and can no longer move it like the younger guys.

[Pnwpingi210]

24 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

And yet most of this players are barely hitting it with more ball speed than Tony. 185 which is 2mph faster than Tony is the sweet spot so could they hit it farther yes if they wanted. Would it be straighter, possibly but they don’t think so and that going faster is more detrimental than helpful.

 

Cam champ is leading the ball speed category and is 163rd in accuracy percentage. Wonder what his accuracy would be like if he dropped his speed a bit. 

Min woo lee is 5 mph faster ballspeed than Tony, and is ranked in the top 30 in accuracy.  
 

You’re cherry picking players to support your arguement .  what’s your point again?

 

Cam champ is also 6th in stokes gained off the tee(.83) Colin Morikowa who is number one off the tee in accuracy is 22nd in stokes gained off the tee (.43).  

 

 What’s more important to you?  Accuracy percentage or the competitive advantage of you drives in stokes relative to the field?    
 

We know through all the work that’s been done on strokes gained that hitting the ball farther, even into the rough (as long as you avoid hazards) is more advantageous than hitting the ball shorter and in the fairways.  Players know this.  There is a less of a premium in their strategy placed on hitting the fairways.  Driving accuracy is a cool stat, but not a good stat to support the equipment is limiting how far golfers can hit the ball.

 

Edited May 22 by Pnwpingi210

[Golfnutgalen]

21 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

Not arguing at all, let alone in bad faith.  Of course the drivers are more forgiving these days.  My point is that the ones who are the most vocal about it tend to be the ones who are past their primes and can no longer move it like the younger guys.

 

That's an interesting argument. But I wouldn't agree that Adam Scott can't move it, he's about as fast now as he ever was. His iron play is crap though for whatever reason. That used to be his bread and butter. 

[chisag]

2 hours ago, NPVWhiz said:

I think I can safely say that what the young guys aren’t skilled at is having the driver be the most difficult club in the bag to hit properly, and yes, I have a personal view/sense/definition of what hit properly means.  For most of the history of the competitive game, the driver was a club that required 

immense skill to hit properly.  The evolution of the driver since the 80s has changed, fundamentally changed, the nature of the game.  I think that the change has diminished the competitive game.  I acknowledge that it makes the casual game more fun for a segment of casual players.

 

 

... Those of us that are old school golfers and started with a balata ball and a persimmon driver with a heavy dynamic gold steel shaft had to first learn to control the ball that could fade/draew 50 yds pr more, then we could try and add distance. Modern golfer are the exact opposite and learn to hit the ball far, then learn to control it, which of course is much easier with the modern ball and 460cc driver. As you said it is just a very different game and a much friendlier game for Ams. The fact that I can hit my Qi10 just a little high and slightly toward the toe and produce a drive with the same or even slightly longer than a center hit is such a gift. 

... I know I am in the minority but rolling back the ball isn't gonna affect my game much. At around 95mph swing speed, a drive that is 3-5 yds shorter will basically be the same club for my approach. But dialing back the size of my driver would be a huge disadvantage for me. The Pro's can adjust much better than Am's so a smaller head just for them would be better, but that would call for bifurcation and that just seems to be a non starter. I just don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle and change the actual performance of any golf equipment. A smaller driver head changes MOI, spin, trajectory and most importantly dispersion. The rolled back ball should perform virtually identical for spin, trajectory, dispersion, etc but just travel a few yards less so I don't see that as a performance change. 

[clevited]

2 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

There’s not a single player on tour 10+ MPH faster than him. Which was part of my original point. Some around his same speed are less accurate and some are more accurate. The ones that are more accurate are probably better golfers than him. Him saying driver is easier to hit now doesn’t mean it’s an auto fairway. His perspective playing across the equipment revolution has weight in my eyes.

 

Turns out my fire from the hip guess wasn't too shabby.  Adam Scott should be leaps and bounds more accurate than BD if the skill has diminished so much driving the ball far because of technology.  

 

Pro tip, shorter equipment like the woods of old are actually MUCH easier to keep in the fairway.  The shorter you are hitting it due to lower COR, shorter club length and unoptimized spin means more fairways hit.  The further you hit it, even with the modern day stuff, the MORE precise you have to be to keep it in or around the short grass.  You should know this.

 

Clubhead speed 2021

 

Driving Accuracy 2021

 

 

Edit:  Its seems as though Adam Scott is advocating for gear to put him out of a job.

Edited May 22 by clevited

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, chisag said:

The fact that I can hit my Qi10 just a little high and slightly toward the toe and produce a drive with the same or even slightly longer than a center hit is such a gift. 

 

Same was/is true of the old stuff.  That is the HOT spot, always has been.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

21 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

That's an interesting argument. But I wouldn't agree that Adam Scott can't move it, he's about as fast now as he ever was. His iron play is crap though for whatever reason. That used to be his bread and butter. 

Maybe he should go back to the Ping ISIs he was using in the 1999 US Publinks.  Those were very forgiving for the time.

Edited May 22 by Ashley Schaeffer

[clevited]

Fun fact.  This is Adam Scott's distance and accuracy in 2003 vs 2023.  That darn forgiveness factor hasn't helped him any by golly.

 

2003 Distance

2023 Distance

2003 Accuracy

2023 Accuracy

Edited May 22 by clevited

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

Fun fact.  This is Adam Scott's distance and accuracy in 2003 vs 2023.  That darn forgiveness factor hasn't helped him any by golly.

 

2003 Distance

2023 Distance

2003 Accuracy

2023 Accuracy

Strokes gained has changed the strategy of the game.  Less of a premium on hitting a fairway, which is all accuracy proves. This shift in strategy off the tee occurred after 2003 and before 2023.

 

That stat does prove that he hits it 14 yards further at age 42 than he did at 22, and that he’s actually lower ranked in distance relative to his field with the extra 14 yards

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Strokes gained has changed the strategy of the game.  Less of a premium on hitting a fairway, which is all accuracy proves. This shift in strategy off the tee occurred after 2003 and before 2023.

 

That stat does prove that he hits it 14 yards further at age 42 than he did at 22, and that he’s actually lower ranked in distance relative to his field with the extra 14 yards

 

I am faster with the same equipment at 41 than I was at 28.  42 isn't old or anything and 14 yards is incredibly easily gained just with optimization.  He was definitely not optimized when he first hit the tour.

 

Also, you are making my point for me.  Accuracy has always meant NOTHING, with driver off the tee. Hit it far, go find it.  Hit it again.  People act like modern day drivers are the reason people swing so fast.  Absolutely incorrect.  People swing so fast because it is the best strategy and always was only it took a Tiger to ultimately show people this as well as a complete culture change.  I saw it happen.

Edited May 22 by clevited

[Ashley Schaeffer]

13 minutes ago, clevited said:

Fun fact.  This is Adam Scott's distance and accuracy in 2003 vs 2023.  That darn forgiveness factor hasn't helped him any by golly.

 

2003 Distance

2023 Distance

2003 Accuracy

2023 Accuracy

But imagine if he had to hit it with the equipment from 2003!  He might average 275 and 30%.  🙄

 

EDIT: These are rough estimates based on what I've learned in this thread.

Edited May 22 by Ashley Schaeffer

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, clevited said:

 

I am faster with the same equipment at 41 as I was at 28.  42 isn't old or anything and 14 yards is incredibly easily gained just with optimization.  He was definitely not optimized when he first hit the tour.

You know this because you personally fit him for clubs?.

 

The other part of you’re comment is comparing the relatively ability of a peak professional athlete to increase their speed with ability of an amateur just learning the the game.  Crawl walk run

[Golfnutgalen]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Strokes gained has changed the strategy of the game.  Less of a premium on hitting a fairway, which is all accuracy proves. This shift in strategy off the tee occurred after 2003 and before 2023.

 

That stat does prove that he hits it 14 yards further at age 42 than he did at 22, and that he’s actually lower ranked in distance relative to his field with the extra 14 yards

 

Scottie Scheffler is proving that the old school thinking still works, just a fairway finding machine while still hitting it plenty far. 

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

You know this because you personally fit him for clubs?.

 

The other part of you’re comment is comparing the relatively ability of a peak professional athlete to increase their speed with ability of an amateur just learning the the game.  Crawl walk run

 

I know this because I am good at reason and logic.  Plus, in 2003 nobody new jack sh*t about optimization lol.

 

Edit:  Forgot to answer your other incorrect comment.  I learned speed at 28 ish.  I went from 105 max chs to 120+ max.  I have built on that ever since and now push 130 max.  Not through swing optimization, just through maintaining what I have and regular speed sessions.

Edited May 22 by clevited

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Scottie Scheffler is proving that the old school thinking still works, just a fairway finding machine while still hitting it plenty far. 

It works for Scottie cause he’s good tee to green.  Some players aren’t as good as him around the greens and approaching the greens, therefore hitting it farther is more advantageous for them.

 

Shane lowery and Colin Morikowa are close to as long off the tee as him and more accurate.  They aren’t seeing the same results consistently 

Edited May 22 by Pnwpingi210

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I know this because I am good at reason and logic.  Plus, in 2003 nobody new jack sh*t about optimization lol.

There is not evidence to support any of what you just said here.  But you are allowed to have your own opinion. 

[clevited]

Just now, Pnwpingi210 said:

There is not evidence to support any of what you just said here.  But you are allowed to have your own opinion. 

 

There is evidence.  I am an avid golfer and have been into the golf stats and simulator side of things for over a decade.  I know my stuff, but believe what you like, or just go ahead and do a little research and use reason and logic and you should come to the same conclusion.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

4 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

There is not evidence to support any of what you just said here.  But you are allowed to have your own opinion. 

 

IDK if they were optimizing the DGX100 back then, but maybe . . .

Adam Scott WITB 2003

Driver: Titleist 983K (8.5 degrees)
Shaft: True Temper Dynamic Gold X100 (44 inches)

 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

 

There is evidence.  I am an avid golfer and have been into the golf stats and simulator side of things for over a decade.  I know my stuff, but believe what you like, or just go ahead and do a little research and use reason and logic and you should come to the same conclusion.

I just provided you with facts and you disputed them by:

 

1.)comparing yourself to an elite professional athlete 

2.)stating you a player wasn’t optimized in 2003 whom you’ve likely never met, met anyone that worked with said player, or read anything the player or anyone that worked directly with the player said about his equipment choices in 2003.

3.)declaring trust me I know what I’m talking about.

[clevited]

Just now, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

IDK if they were optimizing the DGX100 back then, but maybe . . .

Adam Scott WITB 2003

Driver: Titleist 983K (8.5 degrees)
Shaft: True Temper Dynamic Gold X100 (44 inches)

 

 

Darn that reason and logic!!!! It doesn't count as evidence though!

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

IDK if they were optimizing the DGX100 back then, but maybe . . .

Adam Scott WITB 2003

Driver: Titleist 983K (8.5 degrees)
Shaft: True Temper Dynamic Gold X100 (44 inches)

 

But how do you know this wasn’t the best available option for him at the time?  It’s relative to the equipment available to golfers in 2003.  He didn’t have access to 2023 tech because it didn’t exist.

Edited May 22 by Pnwpingi210

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I just provided you with facts and you disputed them by:

 

1.)comparing yourself to an elite professional athlete 

2.)stating you a player wasn’t optimized in 2003 whom you’ve likely never met, met anyone that worked with said player, or read anything the player or anyone that worked directly with the player said about his equipment choices in 2003.

3.)declaring trust me I know what I’m talking about.

 

I am sorry you can't handle someone making valid and logical statements.  Your issue with #1 is also interesting.  Why can't I compare myself to a professional athlete?  Shouldn't that actually make what I stated even more logically sound?  I am not a professional athlete, yet I am faster at 41 than I was at 28 when I first gained most of my speed.  Logically, Adam Scott would be even more unsurprising to be faster and longer at 42 than he was when first on tour.  If you are comparing him at 85 to when he was say 42 and during this maximum optimized era we have been experiencing for well over a decade now, then we can agree tech must have done it.

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

But how do you know this wasn’t the best available option for him at the time?  It’s relative to the equipment available to golfers in 2003.  He didn’t have access to 2023 tech because it didn’t exist.

 

Players spun drivers like 3 woods back then.  They hit down, hit them low and with a lot of spin.  If he went lower loft and hit up a bit, he would be very comparable to today's drivers.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Just now, Pnwpingi210 said:

But how do you know this wasn’t the best available option for him at the time?  It’s relatively to the equipment available to golfers in 2003.  He didn’t have access to 2023 tech because it didn’t exist.

 

I don't know.  I do know that I was using a TT EI-70 several years earlier than that, and only one guy on my college team was using a steel-shafted driver as early as 2001.  There were many options by 2003.  510TP came stock with the Fuji Speeder.  A lot of guys used it that probably shouldn't have.  What 2003 didn't have yet was high tech optimization.

[Pnwpingi210]

Do professional athletes generally get stronger and faster in their 40s as compared to their 20s?    How about long drive athletes?  Do they generally get faster in 40s compared to their 20s?
 

 

now compare that to somebody learning a movement for the first in their mid to late 20s. Sure that person learning the movement has a much much greater potential to be faster at 40 than they were at 28.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

I don't know.  I do know that I was using a TT EI-70 several years earlier than that, and only one guy on my college team was using a steel-shafted driver as early as 2001.  There were many options by 2003.  510TP came stock with the Fuji Speeder.  A lot of guys used it that probably shouldn't have.  What 2003 didn't have yet was high tech optimization.

Okay so if the argument is Adam Scott didn’t have a trackman 4, stealth 2 plus with a Ventus black tipped an inch in 2003 than I agree.

 

to say he was not optimized in 2003 based on the tech available in 2003 is not able to be determine by anything I’ve seen in this thread.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

I don't know.  I do know that I was using a TT EI-70 several years earlier than that, and only one guy on my college team was using a steel-shafted driver as early as 2001.  There were many options by 2003.  510TP came stock with the Fuji Speeder.  A lot of guys used it that probably shouldn't have.  What 2003 didn't have yet was high tech optimization.

 

Exactly.

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Do professional athletes generally get stronger and faster in their 40s as compared to their 20s?    How about long drive athletes?  Do they generally get faster in 40s compared to their 20s?
 

 

now compare that to somebody learning a movement for the first in their mid to late 20s. Sure that person learning the movement has a much much greater potential to be faster at 40 than they were at 28.

 

Lol.  This is where logic and reason comes to play.  Did he lift weights or use explosive exercises to increase speed?  Did he speed train?  Did he stretch to gain more angle in his swing?  I know at least one guy that is just as fast at 50 as he was when he was younger and it isn't from his equipment. 

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Exactly.

 

Lol.  This is where logic and reason comes to play.  Did he lift weights or use explosive exercises to increase speed?  Did he speed train?  Did he stretch to gain more angle in his swing?  I know at least one guy that is just as fast at 50 as he was when he was younger and it isn't from his equipment. 

Yes there are always anecdotes (that guy I know) - but general populations of athlete data does not support athletes getting faster in their sport in their 40.  I’m sure there are exceptions

Edited May 22 by Pnwpingi210

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Okay so if the argument is Adam Scott didn’t have a trackman 4, stealth 2 plus with a Ventus black tipped an inch in 2003 than I agree.

 

to say he was not optimized in 2003 based on the tech available in 2003 is not able to be determine by anything I’ve seen in this thread.

 

He was not optimized given what was available and given the trends at the time.  I am very, very confident he was leaving several yards on the table.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

2 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Okay so if the argument is Adam Scott didn’t have a trackman 4, stealth 2 plus with a Ventus black tipped an inch in 2003 than I agree.

 

to say he was not optimized in 2003 based on the tech available in 2003 is not able to be determine by anything I’ve seen in this thread.

 

The point I was trying to make is that nobody knew if the DGX100 was the best option for him in 2003.  I think I hit on a real sim for the first time in 2002-2003.  It measured CH speed, ball speed, and carry.  The total was an estimate because it didn't measure spin.