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

[ThinkingPlus]

27 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Of course I was being facetious and would't outlaw lines on the ball but I do see many poor putters seemingly tied to them, making minuscule adjustments multiple times to get their line juuuuuust right and still miss the hole by 2 feet. Maybe it's in the semantics but the hole is always the target. If a 20 foot putt breaks 3 feet, you still stroke the ball with a straight stroke 3 feet outside the hole, which is the target. 

... I think a good putter can putt with most anything, although with a natural gate stroke I have a hard time using center shafted putters but I am sure I could adjust if I had to. Poor putters need all the help they can get and other than having a gyroscope in the head, I can't imagine a design I think gives anyone an unfair advantage. I have heard several admittedly poor putters find success with the L.A.B. and I think that's awesome. 

I can feel non-torque balanced putters rotate if I don't properly counter the torque (using a 2nd gen Futura). That will close the face relative to the line. Missed putts from short range were driving me crazy. Also that torque is obviously proportional to force. Harder stroke = greater face twist. Chasing that compensation is more than I can handle. While I might like to, I can't devote hours of practice each day compensating for a poorly designed putter.

[maamold]

On 7/2/2024 at 3:34 PM, AZBRONCFAN said:

17 at Aguila is designed to be a driveable par 4 with a tough layup. The distance on that hole is measured with the dog leg bit straight line. 7k yards plays short half of the year with the ball flying like it does.

Design doesn't matter /s

[maamold]

12 hours ago, cardia10 said:

They don't. 

Of course they do, saying they don't is just you ignoring that fact. 

Edited Thursday at 06:46 AM by maamold
Spelling

[maamold]

9 hours ago, chisag said:

... In keeping with this threads intent if I were the USGA, I would outlaw lines on the ball. 🤪 I think it does far more harm than good. The focus should be on the target and not a line on a ball. I think putting a ball straight is the easiest part of the game, because every putt is straight and you should move the putter the exact same way every single time, just a longer or shorter stroke depending on distance. 

Outlawing lines might be a bit much 🙂

 

I have tried lines on the ball, and I cannot do it on the course. Lines put too much pressure on analysis and my brain overthinks it. is that line really lined up where I want the ball to start, funny doesn't look the same from this angle...I should check again, yep it's lined up...maybe the lines on the putter are off on the lines on the ball because I'm too close, or too far, or the ball is up in my stance, or back in my stance. 🤯

I have a putter, there's the ball and there's the hole, go. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

20 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You don’t follow baseball very closely do you?  The game changed dramatically over the last 20 years, from a base hitting, base running game, to a home run game.  Did you miss this?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/home-runs-are-slowly-killing-baseball-and-something-needs-to-be-done/2019/07/09/c0d42e06-a271-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf_story.html

 

Sounds strangely familiar…

 

It’s definitely changed but they also slowed down the ball after 2019. What a concept.

Edited Thursday at 03:25 PM by TLUBulldogGolf

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

It’s definitely changed but they also slowed down the ball after 2019. What a concept.

And they manipulated the ball in 2022 and used 3 different types of ball. Used juiced balls when it had a benefit for certain games like the Yankees.

 

long ball drives fans. Baseball  hitters using launch monitors to work on launch angle and exit velocity. Home run or strikeout, that’s what the big hitters are getting paid to do. 

[knock it close]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

And they manipulated the ball in 2022 and used 3 different types of ball. Used juiced balls when it had a benefit for certain games like the Yankees.

 

S/O Ryan Spaeder

[Archimedes65]

8 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

It’s definitely changed but they also slowed down the ball after 2019. What a concept.

 

Again, follow more closely.  The ball wasn’t slowed down.  During 2019 the seams were changed and had less drag, which drove a spike in home runs.  For one year.  They fixed that, but home runs have climbed right back up.  And Major League Baseball loves it, because chicks did the long ball.

 

MLB did institute the new shift rules to try to force base hits back into the game, but a) it’s not working that much and b) that rule hasn’t flowed down to the amateur ranks.  So, it’s not similar to golf.  Amateur baseball players still play with different bats and different rules.  Because, you know, amateurs aren’t pros.

[Archimedes65]

Sat at the bar today after my round talking with some fellow members at my club.  All agreed the ball rollback is stupid and all intend to keep playing the old ball as long as they can get them.  The United States Golf Association.  Protecting golf for its members.  Or maybe not so much.

[smashdn]

On 7/3/2024 at 8:43 AM, ThinkingPlus said:

Want, no. It is what we typically play though more often than not.

 

I have never played a strategic design. At least I couldn't recognize it as such from the tees I played. Played lots of penal designs. Some more so that others. I would guess most women would say the same and a large majority of men.

 

I find that incredibly hard to believe.  Truly, old school penal courses are few and far between.  Post war "McGolf Courses" seem to fit that bill at times.  A good deal of those are just utilitarian and come off as very "one dimensional" in terms of design asks.  "Avoid the bunker" is sometimes the extent of it.  I suppose that can be seen as penal architecture.

 

Regarding aesthetics, if it was not important, bunkers wouldn't have the shapes they do and the course designers (nearly always) wouldn't have taken pains to blend the manufactured part of the course into the natural to make it seamless and pleasing to the eye.  There is a science to aesthetics as well.  Read up on why green landscapes draw us in.  Read why the "savannah-like" landscape of a golf course attracts us to it.  There is a scientific explanation to the art and an artistic application of the science.

[ThinkingPlus]

11 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I find that incredibly hard to believe.  Truly, old school penal courses are few and far between.  Post war "McGolf Courses" seem to fit that bill at times.  A good deal of those are just utilitarian and come off as very "one dimensional" in terms of design asks.  "Avoid the bunker" is sometimes the extent of it.  I suppose that can be seen as penal architecture.

 

Regarding aesthetics, if it was not important, bunkers wouldn't have the shapes they do and the course designers (nearly always) wouldn't have taken pains to blend the manufactured part of the course into the natural to make it seamless and pleasing to the eye.  There is a science to aesthetics as well.  Read up on why green landscapes draw us in.  Read why the "savannah-like" landscape of a golf course attracts us to it.  There is a scientific explanation to the art and an artistic application of the science.

I have spent most of my golfing life playing some of the ugliest goat tracks in this country. If I only played "pretty" courses, I would have never played.

 

Bunkers are places to avoid. I never gaze fondly at them. There is nothing aesthetic about a sandy hole in the ground I never want to be near.

 

I spent my early golfing years playing golf in Florida. Most courses in South FL are built on swamp land. Water or penalty areas on nearly every hole. Crowned fairways for drainage purposes. A 40 yard wide fairway might only have 25 yard wide area to land because the crowning directs balls to watery graves.

 

Golf courses are defined by PAs or effective PAs. It isn't about hitting the ball to a good place, but about avoiding the bad places. That seems like penal design to me.

[Titleist99]

15 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 They fixed that, but home runs have climbed right back up.  And Major League Baseball loves it, because chicks did the long ball.

 

Agreed, and as soon as golfs ruling body realizes this the better off they'll be..... 🤣

 

They're trying to force small ball in golf.....

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

A 40 yard wide fairway might only have 25 yard wide area to land because the crowning directs balls to watery graves.

 

There you go.  Very basic strategic design whether intended or not.

 

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Golf courses are defined by PAs or effective PAs. It isn't about hitting the ball to a good place, but about avoiding the bad places. That seems like penal design to me.

 

That's a very pessimistic way to look at it imo.  You have never stood on the tee and thought to yourself, "I can access the green much better from the left side of the fairway than the right."?  Even my course with little to no architectural pedigree has holes where you are better off being on one side or the other, sometimes changing due to where the hole is cut.

 

You ever played a course with no bunkers?  If yes, what did you use to pick your line of play given nothing obvious to avoid?

Edited Friday at 04:03 PM by smashdn

[ThinkingPlus]

11 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

There you go.  Very basic strategic design whether intended or not.

 

 

That's a very pessimistic way to look at it imo.  You have never stood on the tee and thought to yourself, "I can access the green much better from the left side of the fairway than the right."?  Even my course with little to no architectural pedigree has holes where you are better off being on one side or the other, sometimes changing due to where the hole is cut.

 

You ever played a course with no bunkers?  If yes, what did you use to pick your line of play given nothing obvious to avoid?

Hitting the ball straight isn't very strategic. Highly desirable, but not very thought provoking.

 

No, I do not worry about accessibility to the green. I plan on hitting the green in the air. Not usually any accessibility issues coming in from 70 feet high.

Edited yesterday at 04:00 AM by ThinkingPlus
Spelling...

[TLUBulldogGolf]

20 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Again, follow more closely.  The ball wasn’t slowed down.  During 2019 the seams were changed and had less drag, which drove a spike in home runs.  For one year.  They fixed that, but home runs have climbed right back up.  And Major League Baseball loves it, because chicks did the long ball.

 

MLB did institute the new shift rules to try to force base hits back into the game, but a) it’s not working that much and b) that rule hasn’t flowed down to the amateur ranks.  So, it’s not similar to golf.  Amateur baseball players still play with different bats and different rules.  Because, you know, amateurs aren’t pros.

 

 

They took steps to curb home runs whatever was done. Why? They have not approached the numbers seen in 2019. But generally I agree analogies to other sports are silly.

Edited Friday at 08:15 PM by TLUBulldogGolf

[fbjim]

They weren't specifically trying to curb home runs, they were trying to curb what got called "Three True Outcome" baseball, where infield hits were minimized and HRs, flyouts, and strikeouts were emphasized. 

 

The extent that this was true varied by team, but I definitely heard people complain about a) the high amount of strikeouts, and b) the lack of infield plays, especially when combined with modern defensive shifts. 

 

Also this is ignoring the big difference which is that, the baseball, and baseball bat industries are a fraction of the size and influence of the golf club industry.