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

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

But will it MATTER if all competitors are affected in the same general manner?

Sure it matters.....just try putting toothpaste back in the tube.🙂

[gvogel]

26 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

GIRs have always been valuable, but proximity is king. Hitting a green, but leaving the ball > 50' or 60' away is worse than 30' from the fringe cut. It was really fairways at all costs which is bad strategy as well as laying up to a good number. Assuming equal risk, closer is always better as long as you have spin control over the shot.

If one hits the ball a long way and only has a wedge or high lofted iron for a shot to the green, then bomb and gauge is very productive.  But that is because a wedge or high lofted iron from the rough in not particularly difficult.

 

But in the pre-solid ball, pre titanium era, golfers commonly had longer iron shots into greens.  Also, the penalty in distance loss for a mis-hit was a larger penalty than with modern equipment.  It was very difficult to hit a longer iron from the rough.

 

I suspect that if Broadie had compiled his data in the 1970's and 1980's, he would have concluded that playing from the fairway would have been much more important than today.  So I am going with that explanation as to why "fairways and greens" was the important consideration for older equipment, and playing on relatively longer courses (relative to the hitting distances achieved) in the era before modern equipment.  The game was different, and applying today's strategies to yesterday's courses and equipment is a fool's errand.

[gvogel]

32 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Sure it matters.....just try putting toothpaste back in the tube.🙂

Golf is played against two opponents.  The course is one opponent.  Fellow competitors is the other component.

 

When the distance decreases in 2028 or 2030, playing against the course will be more difficult.  But that difficulty can be mitigated by playing the course at a shorter distance (move up a set of tees, or setting up the course at a shorter distance).  Or stock up on today's balls and play the same course.

 

Playing against fellow competitors should not change under the new ball specs, as long players will still be long and short players short.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

If one hits the ball a long way and only has a wedge or high lofted iron for a shot to the green, then bomb and gauge is very productive.  But that is because a wedge or high lofted iron from the rough in not particularly difficult.

 

But in the pre-solid ball, pre titanium era, golfers commonly had longer iron shots into greens.  Also, the penalty in distance loss for a mis-hit was a larger penalty than with modern equipment.  It was very difficult to hit a longer iron from the rough.

 

I suspect that if Broadie had compiled his data in the 1970's and 1980's, he would have concluded that playing from the fairway would have been much more important than today.  So I am going with that explanation as to why "fairways and greens" was the important consideration for older equipment, and playing on relatively longer courses (relative to the hitting distances achieved) in the era before modern equipment.  The game was different, and applying today's strategies to yesterday's courses and equipment is a fool's errand.

I think hitting the fairway was more important, but not enough to tip the balance away from bomb and gouge. Maybe at a US Open or PGA the balance might tip the other way. The fragility of the balls were a big factor.

[Soloman1]

winners are usually outliers.

outliers in distance would likely stay outliers.

courses for horses.

but why go through all the agony? a or b results in people disappointed.

how about leave it as it is and prevent further equipment changes contributing to higher ball speeds?

going backwards seems unnatural for humans.

i don’t want to go back to propeller airliners.

 

[gvogel]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think hitting the fairway was more important, but not enough to tip the balance away from bomb and gouge. Maybe at a US Open or PGA the balance might tip the other way. The fragility of the balls were a big factor.

My point was that relative to hitting distances, course played at 6,800 yards played longer than today's courses with today's equipment.  So relative to hitting distances, yesterday's courses played more like US Open courses.  I don't think that scuffing a balata ball was as important a consideration as the difficulty of hitting a longer iron from the rough.

[chisag]

12 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

For sure.  I think a lot of the powers that be are underestimating how many people are going to ignore this rule and play the old balls for as long as stocks exist, save for actual competition rounds.  I also think that there will likely be a tsunami of anger from consumers as we get closer to the implementation date, and it would not surprise me at all if the manufacturers continue to make the old balls for people who want to play them on a non-conforming basis.

 

 

... LOL I should save this post. Has the USGA underestimated how many play a mulligan/breakfast ball off the first tee? Take their ball out of a divot? Roll the ball in the fairway and/or rough? Carry more than 14 clubs in their bag? Switch balls on the green to something softer? So why would they care how many play what will be an illegal ball recreationally? 

... And a tsunami of anger from consumers? I would love to see the stats on how many in 2030 that don't even know there was a rollback ball change when they grab their Velocity or Supersoft balls off the shelf. I and others have said we doubt the average Am will notice much difference in their new and old balls but of course that remains to be seen. I know the Henry Penny crowd thinks Ams will lose prodigious distances but they probably also thought the sky was falling in 2000: 

 

"In the years leading up to the turn of the millennium, the public gradually became aware of the "Y2K scare", and individual companies predicted the global damage caused by the bug would require anything between $400 million and $600 billion to rectify. A lack of clarity regarding the potential dangers of the bug led some to stock up on food, water, and firearms, purchase backup generators, and withdraw large sums of money in anticipation of a computer-induced apocalypse. 

Contrary to published expectations, few major errors occurred in 2000."

[Titleist99]

18 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Golf is played against two opponents.  The course is one opponent.  Fellow competitors is the other component.

 

When the distance decreases in 2028 or 2030, playing against the course will be more difficult.  But that difficulty can be mitigated by playing the course at a shorter distance (move up a set of tees, or setting up the course at a shorter distance).  Or stock up on today's balls and play the same course.

 

Playing against fellow competitors should not change under the new ball specs, as long players will still be long and short players short.

"Golf is played against two opponents.  The course is one opponent.  Fellow competitors is the other component."

 

The USGA just created another opponent in our golfing life ....... (Pre-rollback  equipment) we will always compare ourselves to game that we used to have.

 

"When the distance decreases in 2028 or 2030, playing against the course will be more difficult.  But that difficulty can be mitigated by playing the course at a shorter distance (move up a set of tees, or setting up the course at a shorter distance).  Or stock up on today's balls and play the same course."

 

This is the miscalculation of the USGA...... Ego will not allow an average golfer to move up a tee PERIOD. Golf courses will not setup for shorter distances, that will require building new tee boxes.

Total lack of wisdom and judgment on the USGAs part.  IMO

 

"Playing against fellow competitors should not change under the new ball specs, as long players will still be long and short players short."

 

That, plus everyone will be shorter unless there's a ball check on the first tee.

[Archimedes65]

12 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... LOL I should save this post. Has the USGA underestimated how many play a mulligan/breakfast ball off the first tee? Take their ball out of a divot? Roll the ball in the fairway and/or rough? Carry more than 14 clubs in their bag? Switch balls on the green to something softer? So why would they care how many play what will be an illegal ball recreationally? 

... And a tsunami of anger from consumers? I would love to see the stats on how many in 2030 that don't even know there was a rollback ball change when they grab their Velocity or Supersoft balls off the shelf. I and others have said we doubt the average Am will notice much difference in their new and old balls but of course that remains to be seen. I know the Henry Penny crowd thinks Ams will lose prodigious distances but they probably also thought the sky was falling in 2000: 

 

"In the years leading up to the turn of the millennium, the public gradually became aware of the "Y2K scare", and individual companies predicted the global damage caused by the bug would require anything between $400 million and $600 billion to rectify. A lack of clarity regarding the potential dangers of the bug led some to stock up on food, water, and firearms, purchase backup generators, and withdraw large sums of money in anticipation of a computer-induced apocalypse. 

Contrary to published expectations, few major errors occurred in 2000."

 

If you don’t think there’s a difference in the eyes of the average amateur between taking a breakfast ball and playing an entire round with a non-conforming ball, I think you really don’t know golf.  Having a large swath of amateur players, including lots of players with single digit handicaps, playing non-conforming balls would be a major issue and would not be a good thing for the USGA.  And when the President of the PGA says that his club members intend to play the old balls for years afterwards, I dunno, maybe there’s some fire where that smoke’s coming from.

 

NBA shoots from a farther three point line, MLB has to use wooden bats vs. aluminum, NFL has a larger football than NCAA, but golf, golf is special.  Golf can’t see fit to differentiate between the pro and amateur game in even the most basic of ways.  The ball.  Why?  Because a golf is run by a small clique of mostly amateur overlords who have too much power over the game.  Honestly, I think golf is ripe for some litigation to be filed similar what has befallen the NCAA.  Basically, the USGA has a monopoly over competitive amateur golf through the GHIN system, which impacts golf played at every single club in the U.S. and has a huge economic impact on golfing consumers.

[Titleist99]

27 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... LOL I should save this post. Has the USGA underestimated how many play a mulligan/breakfast ball off the first tee? Take their ball out of a divot? Roll the ball in the fairway and/or rough? Carry more than 14 clubs in their bag? Switch balls on the green to something softer? So why would they care how many play what will be an illegal ball recreationally? 

... And a tsunami of anger from consumers? I would love to see the stats on how many in 2030 that don't even know there was a rollback ball change when they grab their Velocity or Supersoft balls off the shelf. I and others have said we doubt the average Am will notice much difference in their new and old balls but of course that remains to be seen. I know the Henry Penny crowd thinks Ams will lose prodigious distances but they probably also thought the sky was falling in 2000: 

 

"In the years leading up to the turn of the millennium, the public gradually became aware of the "Y2K scare", and individual companies predicted the global damage caused by the bug would require anything between $400 million and $600 billion to rectify. A lack of clarity regarding the potential dangers of the bug led some to stock up on food, water, and firearms, purchase backup generators, and withdraw large sums of money in anticipation of a computer-induced apocalypse. 

Contrary to published expectations, few major errors occurred in 2000."

Your problem sir is that you don't know the human nature of the average male golfer. He will use the new rolled back golf ball, and blame every mishit, slice, top, etc.... on the USGA. What he won't do is move up to the ladies' tee even if that's where he belongs. 🤣

[Golfnutgalen]

 

Here's the distance chart based on PGA Tour data. The big increase is from 1995 to 2003, more than 20 yards in a relatively short span. And then the next decade had little movement. From 2006 to 2016 is basically a flat line (ups and downs) and since then a modest gain of about 8 yards.

 

So the question is what is responsible for the massive gain in 1995-2003? The obvious answer is equipment. 

 

There is no question that players today are faster than ever, but combine that speed with optimization and their gains in the past 20 years are not that huge. I expected more honestly. Clubhead speed has gone up only 3.65 mph since 2007 (earliest data available) while ballspeed went up 9 mph. Again, optimization and equipment is the bigger factor than stronger players. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:23 PM by Golfnutgalen

[Golfnutgalen]

 

Here's a chart with Tiger to analyze as well. There is always year to year variability as well. For example in 2005 Tiger hit driver everywhere in St. Andrews and was #1 in distance hitting it 342 while the following year at Hoylake he mostly hit irons off the tee and averaged 291.

[Titleist99]

11 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

So the question is what is responsible for the massive gain in 1995-2003? The obvious answer is equipment. 

Even if that's true the game didn't fall apart in fact the game was enhanced and thriving.

 

According to the CEO of the USGA (Mike Whan)......The game has never been healthier.

[chisag]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

Your problem sir is that you don't know the human nature of the average male golfer. He will use the new rolled back golf ball, and blame every mishit, slice, top, etc.... on the USGA. What he won't do is move up to the ladies' tee even if that's where he belongs. 🤣

 

 

... I taught golf full-time for 5 years so I saw the "human nature" of the average male golfer 6 days a week. I also live in Phoenix and play year round. I have a core group of regulars but playing 4 to 5 times week I get paired up with plenty of strangers. I think I have a pretty good handle on the average Am, although not Bro golfers or you and your circle of friends. Everyone in my group has already moved up a tee box, other than a 36yr old stud that still plays the tips. I talked my 82 yr old pard into moving up to the red tees on the longer holes and while initially reluctant, after playing there several few rounds he moved up on all the holes. Another 67yr old was playing the silver tees and should have been playing the gold tees. He had throat cancer last season and went through some brutal chemo/radiation and lost 35lbs and a good deal of strength so once recovered 🥳 he "temporarily" moved up to the gold tees. Once he regained his strength and distance he didn't go back because he enjoyed playing from the appropriate tees for his game.



 

[Titleist99]

40 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Here's a chart with Tiger to analyze as well. There is always year to year variability as well. For example in 2005 Tiger hit driver everywhere in St. Andrews and was #1 in distance hitting it 342 while the following year at Hoylake he mostly hit irons off the tee and averaged 291.

So, in the past twenty years Tiger and the outlier has gained nothing but the rest of the tour is gaining?

Edited Tuesday at 05:12 PM by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I taught golf full-time for 5 years so I saw the "human nature" of the average male golfer 6 days a week. I also live in Phoenix and play year round. I have a core group of regulars but playing 4 to 5 times week I get paired up with plenty of strangers. I think I have a pretty good handle on the average Am, although not Bro golfers or you and your circle of friends. Everyone in my group has already moved up a tee box, other than a 36yr old stud that still plays the tips. I talked my 82 yr old pard into moving up to the red tees on the longer holes and while initially reluctant, after playing there several few rounds he moved up on all the holes. Another 67yr old was playing the silver tees and should have been playing the gold tees. He had throat cancer last season and went through some brutal chemo/radiation and lost 35lbs and a good deal of strength so once recovered 🥳 he "temporarily" moved up to the gold tees. Once he regained his strength and distance he didn't go back because he enjoyed playing from the appropriate tees for his game.



 

We shall agree to disagree. What I see is different. I see people who are playing the big course when they should be playing the par three course and then graduating. The average male golfer plays the men's tee when the ladies are where they belong. I see most that play the back tee are totally out of their league but insist on playing them because they paid their money.

 

IMO Your group is the exception and not the rule. Kudos to you for moving up a tee though.

[Golfnutgalen]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

So, in twenty years Tiger and the outlier has gained nothing but the rest of the tour is gaining?

 

Yep, very little movement from the driving distance leader in all these years. 2013 was only 306, what was going on that year???

 

Tiger hovered around that 300 yard line for his entire pro career with that noticeable blip in 2005 as an exception. Obviously he's not as quick as he used to be and yet he's still hitting it the same distance. His current clubhead speed is 117 when he used to be 124 (2007).

[mgoblue83]

29 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

So, in twenty years Tiger and the outlier has gained nothing but the rest of the tour is gaining?

 

Yes. The issue is that EVERYONE can hit it 300+ yards now instead of just a few players at the top of the driving distance charts.

 

We don't want a rollback because a handful of people can drive it far. That's talent and outliers are good for the game. The issue is when the entire professional field and most single digit amateurs are able to drive it 300+ without much fear of a big miss.

 

Also the fact that Tiger is just as long now as he was in the 90's is absurd. He's swinging at least 10mph slower than he was during that time yet drives it just as far and probably straighter entirely due to equipment.

Edited Tuesday at 05:16 PM by mgoblue83

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Yep, very little movement from the driving distance leader in all these years. 2013 was only 306, what was going on that year???

 

Tiger hovered around that 300 yard line for his entire pro career with that noticeable blip in 2005 as an exception. Obviously he's not as quick as he used to be and yet he's still hitting it the same distance. His current clubhead speed is 117 when he used to be 124 (2007).

Absolutely. The #1 player in the world SS is averaging approx. 298-302 yards off the tee which is the sweet spot IMO. At 300 Tiger can still compete on the tour IMO

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Yes. The issue is that EVERYONE can hit it 300+ yards now instead of just a few players at the top of the driving distance charts.

 

We don't want a rollback because a handful of people can drive it far. That's talent and outliers are good for the game. The issue is when the entire professional field and most single digit amateurs are able to drive it 300+ without much fear of a big miss.

 

Also the fact that Tiger is just as long now as he was in the 90's is absurd. He's swinging at least 10mph slower than he was during that time yet drives it just as far and probably straighter entirely due to equipment.

The problem you guys have is thinking that the general population wants to see mishits in the modern game. Most people's drivers do not go that straight.

---------------------------------

 

Roll backers are trying to manufacture a game that most don't want to see.

Edited Tuesday at 05:30 PM by Titleist99

[TLUBulldogGolf]

5 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

The problem you guys have is thinking that the general population wants to see mishits in the modern game. Most people's drivers do not go that straight.

---------------------------------

 

Roll backers are trying to manufacture a game that most don't want to see.

If there are no mishits what is there to appreciate when watching?

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

This isn't a dig as I am genuinely interested to understand this and others feel free to weigh in, but if distance is the be-all-end-all (and I do agree it is incredibly important, why was it not the A#1 factor or drive or element in say 1980?  As an example, why didn't Nick Faldo (big guy by golf standards) hit the bajeezus out of the ball when he certainly could have crafted a swing to do so?

 

Was it that all of them were brainwashed to think accuracy first?  Deacon Palmer told Arnie to swing hard so thinking there were some out there that recognized that distance (or more accurately reducing the distance of the next shot) was also incredibly important.

 

I realize a lot has changed from club materials to agronomy to the Konica minolta swing vision camera and whatnot, but there has been a step change were distance became number 1 and all the other "golf skills" took a backseat, some of them moving from riding shotgun to the third row between car seats in the spot covered in dog fur.

 

Distance STILL isn't the be-all end-all on tour. There was that spreadsheet that we discussed (I think in the Cam Champ thread) that basically correlated various stats to FEC points accrual. 

• SG: Approach was #1 by a decent margin. SG: Approach, I would argue, is a pure ballstriking/accuracy stat. Top 5 are Scheffler, Hoge, Finau, Conners, and Schauffele. Hoge isn't a big name, but he has a tour win and three top 10s so far this year. Conners has 2 career wins. The other three names have 3 majors and a combined 24 wins. 
• SG: OTT was #2. I would argue that this is a blended distance/accuracy stat. While Rory is #2 and Scheffler #3 in this stat, Kevin Dougherty is #1, Keith Mitchell is #4, and Kevin Yu is #5.  #1/4/5 have a combined 1 PGA tour win. This group (Rory/Scheff) has twice as many career majors, but 4 of their 6 came >10 years ago, and 2 of their 6 are shared with the SG: Approach group. 
• Driving Distance was ~#30 IIRC. This obviously is a distance, not accuracy, stat. Again you have Rory at #1 and Clark at #5 (3 wins / 1 major), but the three players between them (MW Lee, Ben An, Dougherty) again have a combined 0 PGA Tour wins. Are Lee/An young rising stars? Yes, but that distance hasn't turned into wins yet.  

I think it points to the idea that accuracy is STILL the most important thing in golf. I think back in the day, due to lack of analytics, however, it was highlighted to the exclusion of focusing on distance. 

 

Distance is important. But for all the people claiming it's just "driver/wedge" and the game no longer rewards skill, I think the stats say otherwise. Ballstriking / accuracy are significantly more important than just hitting it far and hacking it out of the rough. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

21 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

What data have you seen? If we're looking at the same data (MGS), the highest ball speed for mid swing speeds (Left Dash) and for the slowest (Wilson DUO Soft) had 8 yards of carry distance and 9 yards total distance between. The difference between the longest ball (ProV1x) and the shortest (TP5) was about 17 yards of carry distance and 18 yards total. So in both cases the differences exceed 6 yards. 

 

Now, I don't know enough to know why the DUO Soft isn't the shortest ball in the test, or why the TP5 is. But in either case, it's actually irrelevant. We don't know how the new ball will respond. 

 

What we DO know is that the testing criteria is not likely to be based on a 3 mph ball speed difference. Again assuming the testing criteria and known smash factors (1.5 on a driver), they have to mitigate what would be essentially a 7.5 mph ball speed difference if nothing is done. Maybe they do that by making the ball softer (slower)? Maybe they do that with aerodynamics? We don't really know. We don't have balls in hand. 

 

But if a 3 mph ball speed difference shows up as a 9 yard total distance difference in testing, what do you think mitigating the effective impact of a 7.5 mph ball speed difference will be, whether it's done through compression or spin (or other)? 

 

I'd put money that it's going to be >10 yards. 

For tour level balls the difference is 3 mph, which should be ~6 yards, the data ended up reflecting 7 yards of carry. I’m not considering outliers like the TP5 as there are too many variables. We know softening the core will hurt efficiency which is what will need to be done with the new parameters. The same balls had a 5 mph delta at high speed and would likely be close to that 7.5 number approaching the test speed. I’m not saying the softest core tour ball passes the new test but I would guess it’s close. I’d expect the new balls to be very close to what they have said. 

[Titleist99]

19 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

If there are no mishits what is there to appreciate when watching?

Just watch a PGAT event and you'll see an occasional foul ball but as a product, their motto is that these guys are good, and all Pros hit the ball straight most of the time.

 

If you want to see foul balls, subscribe to the PGAT LIVE segments and you will see plenty of bad golf.

[subrew]

37 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

For tour level balls the difference is 3 mph, which should be ~6 yards, the data ended up reflecting 7 yards of carry. I’m not considering outliers like the TP5 as there are too many variables. We know softening the core will hurt efficiency which is what will need to be done with the new parameters. The same balls had a 5 mph delta at high speed and would likely be close to that 7.5 number approaching the test speed. I’m not saying the softest core tour ball passes the new test but I would guess it’s close. I’d expect the new balls to be very close to what they have said. 

 

TXG did several soft ball comparisons about 3-4 years ago.  It wasn't necessarily geared towards this exact issue (the new USGA rules) but it showed a lot of what you guys are mentioning.  Back when they had Matty hitting balls, he could move his fast driver swings well past 120mph, with total driver distance in the 325-330 range.  So they compared the ProV1 to the DuoSoft using wedge, 7i, and his fast driver.  Then they had him dial back the driver speed to about 94mph.  

 

At the fast speeds, the Duo lost 6mph of ball speed compared to the ProV1, and total distance dropped around 10yds.  At the 94mph speed, it was only about 2.5mph slower ball speed, but with the slightly lower spin, total distance was nearly the same.  

 

I'm with you, I think some of the current really low comp balls could actually pass the USGA test.  They are likely going to be losing 8-10mph of ball speed when hit at 127mph swing speed.

 

 

[Golfnutgalen]

I'll put another chart together, this time the leader is the top 5 longest hitters' average. That is still an outlier but it should give us a more realistic number. 

 

Starting in 1987 because the tour's website no longer shows data prior to that. 

 

Definitely a clearer trend line for the leaders. But still rather unremarkable gains since 2003. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:35 PM by Golfnutgalen

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Yes. The issue is that EVERYONE can hit it 300+ yards now instead of just a few players at the top of the driving distance charts.

 

We don't want a rollback because a handful of people can drive it far. That's talent and outliers are good for the game. The issue is when the entire professional field and most single digit amateurs are able to drive it 300+ without much fear of a big miss.

 

Also the fact that Tiger is just as long now as he was in the 90's is absurd. He's swinging at least 10mph slower than he was during that time yet drives it just as far and probably straighter entirely due to equipment.

 

Even with a rollback, the distribution of distance across the field is still going to compress and the average will continue to rise closer and closer to the distance leaders.

 

Distance (regardless of any amount of rollbacks) is an advantage, as Shots Gained shows, and I don't think you'd deny, right? It has been demonstrably shown, given existing shots-gained data compiled by Mark Broadie, that player driving distance becomes more important the longer the course. Rolling back the ball is analogous to lengthening every course, which may have the unintended consequence of incentivizing player distance even more than it currently is. So, while the ball will be harder to hit further, it creates a larger advantage to do so. So over time, long-hitting kids continue to replace the shorter hitters. This leads to the average continuing to rise, while the distance leaders continues to stay static. This is distance compression. 

 

Honestly, this is just the natural end-point of professional golf. Eventually, (like in 40 years) it's likely that everyone in the field will likely hit it within 10-15 yards of each other as every possible advantage is sought after. Though, it is arguable that rollbacks (and lengthening of courses) will only accelerate this trend. Just like you don't see hardly any sub-six foot tall NBA players these days, you won't see any PGA Tour players who drive the ball 40 yards shorter than the distance leader. 

 

So, what number is it you care about? The 300 yd marker, or the distribution of the driving distance band of the field? It's quite easy to make it so that only one or two can hit it over 300 yards, but you can't stop the rest of the field from hitting it 295. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:41 PM by Simpsonia

[chisag]

6 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

So, what number is it you care about? The 300 yd marker, or the distribution of the driving distance band of the field? It's quite easy to make it so that only one or two can hit it over 300 yards, but you can't stop the rest of the field from hitting it 295. 

 

 

... Since you axed, for me it is the way courses are designed to be played. Hazards are designed and in most cases there is a risk reward if you want to challenge the hazard or lay up just short of it. But even then a very select few are able to fly the hazard. I think that is the way it should be and distance from a select few at the very top should be an advantage. 

... I have not played a modern course built in the last 10 years that is well over 7000yds and may or may not have hazards in play for the average PGA Pro. IMO thinking your way around a gif course should be equally as important as raw length. If all anyone wanted to see was crazy long drives, they would design a course with no hazards and 100yd wide fairways that are just straight holes without doglegs. Oh wait, they have that and it's called the World Long Drive. 

... I certainly understand some here differ in their opinions but personally I want to see the best players in the world do it all. Accurate drives, precision fairway woods and hybrids, bending shots 30yds left and right to get out of trouble as well as high over a tree or low under it, laser like iron shots controlling the trajectory and getting up and down from seemingly impossible lies. I am bored shirtless watching someone hit a 330+ drive over a bunker "guarding" the dogleg, then a wedge to the green followed by a two putt. The only drama at all is whether or not they make the putt so TV shows an inordinate amount of 2 putts.   

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

Absolutely. The #1 player in the world SS is averaging approx. 298-302 yards off the tee which is the sweet spot IMO. At 300 Tiger can still compete on the tour IMO

If there is a "sweet spot" at 300 yards in your opinion, why is Rory averaging 320?  My answer is that he does that because he can, with success.  According to you a lot more players could average over 320, but don't because of this imagined "sweet spot."   I say that if they could, they would.

 

By the way, who is the No 1 player in swing speed?

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I taught golf full-time for 5 years so I saw the "human nature" of the average male golfer 6 days a week. I also live in Phoenix and play year round. I have a core group of regulars but playing 4 to 5 times week I get paired up with plenty of strangers. I think I have a pretty good handle on the average Am, although not Bro golfers or you and your circle of friends. Everyone in my group has already moved up a tee box, other than a 36yr old stud that still plays the tips. I talked my 82 yr old pard into moving up to the red tees on the longer holes and while initially reluctant, after playing there several few rounds he moved up on all the holes. Another 67yr old was playing the silver tees and should have been playing the gold tees. He had throat cancer last season and went through some brutal chemo/radiation and lost 35lbs and a good deal of strength so once recovered 🥳 he "temporarily" moved up to the gold tees. Once he regained his strength and distance he didn't go back because he enjoyed playing from the appropriate tees for his game.



 

That is my experience as well, particularly for older players.  Where I play a couple of guys moved to the gold tees.  They reported that they had more fun.  Soon more players their age started playing from the gold tees...and having more fun.