[Rob Marshall]

...

I would imagine there are a multitude of modern players that would be longer than Norman using his equipment, but it's very hard to believe they would be able to be as long and keep the ball on the course.

I picked a random year (1990) and compared it to 2020.

Dustin Johnson hits 61.18% of his fairways. Greg Norman in 1990 hit 68.10% (just under one less fairway hit per round) while hitting it over 30 yards farther than Norman (308.3 vs. 277.6). I think several guys would hold their own, and that's against one of the best drivers the game has seen.

BTW, Bryson sits at 59.79%, which is only (.681-.5979)*18 = 1.4958 fairways fewer per round… at nearly 50 yards more distance.

...

Once again Erik demonstrates that he does not understand the topic. The data you recite is useless on this topic Erik. Perhaps you should change your major to English Literature.

Garland, as we both know Erik’s degrees change depending on topic.....

[Lou_Duran]

I don't understand the call to roll back equipment.  Why do golf courses "need" to be longer?  Have they gotten too easy for the average golfer?  Let the pros shoot whatever they can.  It doesn't matter - low score still wins. 


If a club's membership decides to spend big bucks on making their course longer to "protect par", let them - it's their money.   Otherwise,leave courses alone.

We had one of the qualifiers yesterday at my home club for the Texas Golf Association's Mid-Amateur being held at Oak Hill (Tillie) in San Antonio this coming October.  The two co-medalists shot 66 (-6) and -2 played off for the final spots (10 total).  Reportedly, the course was set up at just over 6800 yards, or 500+ yards from the back plates.  Many of those trying to qualify played college golf.


A few weeks back we hosted a last-chance qualifier for the Texas State Open where there was a 63 and a 64, and it also took -2 to make it to the tournament.  The course was set up around 7100 yards, still leaving quite a bit in the tank.  With very little capital or operating expense or effect on safety, we could add another 200 yards.  As it is, I estimate that less than 15% of our rounds are played from the back tees, maybe 25% from the blues, and the rest from the whites and the reds (women and SS).


What would be the interest of our members to roll back the ball 15% -20%?  Our driving range does not contain all of our players, but more on the slice side than over the back.  We could easily go green and plant some trees to serve as barriers, but in the years I've been a member, there has not been a liability problem dealing with a ball being too long or far of line.


We don't compete with Dallas CC, Brook Hollow, Lakewood, Colonial, Shady Oaks, etc.  Our ability to accommodate the modern ball does not prompt these clubs to tear down fences, acquire more real estate, or otherwise "disfigure" their courses to keep up with us.  All have very smart, successful members who know what is in their best interests and how to resolve conflicting objectives.  They too have children, grandchildren, and legacies to protect.


All the Malthusian fear-mongering about population growth and depletion of resources is even older than the 100 year-old dystopian predictions of technology ruining the game.  As I drive down the North Dallas Tollway going a bit over the speed limit and being passed by all sorts of high performance trucks, SUVs, sports cars and sedans like I am standing still, I can sympathize  with some of you feeling the rage.  Maybe the government should be rolling back this new technology as well.  I mean, who needs to spend $75-$150k+ on a car and why not go back to the times when the maximum speed in the US was 55 mph?  Who needs a ProV1 or an SL500?  All sorts of liability, environmental, and sustainability issues here too. 


Having said all this, if the ruling bodies decide to regress the ball, I would comply.  As Mr. Pritchett suggests, I can always move up a set or two and continue to whine, this time about not being able to hit it to my shadow.

[Peter Pallotta]

I noticed that Tom started this thread many years ago, and then I realized (duh!) that he has carved out a very successful and likely historic career building award winning courses -- the majority of which are not long by modern standards, and indeed seem to have been designed with nary a thought given to the distance debate. And yet golfers and raters of just about all ages and skill levels love playing them -- finding them neither too easy nor too hard. Which may either mean that the importance of distance/the distance debate is greatly exaggerated and/or that the majority of golfers don't hit the ball nearly as far as they think they do!

[Sean_A]

Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe.  I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe.  I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.

Ciao

Sean distance is now seen as the way to go for people coming into the game.  These young guys are not out scoring me but they are out smashing me. Recently played with a guy who thought nothing unusual about the 8 balls he lost - he had 2 birdies!  I play with the father of a guy who played a 6i,8i to Deal's 16.  His dad despairs that despite obvious talent the son has no interest in getting better,  just hitting it further. He wants to play long courses.


The game is being changed by technology, and it's not just the elite who play a game I am unfamiliar with. Just saying let the pros score whatever, is burying our heads in the waste areas and neglecting to stand up for what has made golf great for so long.

[Sean_A]

Spangles

I have news for ya, all kids like to smash the ball.

I never said the game isn't changing... its always changing. Sure, I would prefer if carrying a ball 350 yards or even 300 yards wasn't possible. It would be one less reason for numptys to change courses. But I don't believe an across the board rollback is the best solution. For one, I think courses would continue to be altered as it has been the case. Second, I want to see the theory of rollback tried slowly. I don't necessarily buy that certain players will be hugely effected while others are not. Easy does the change... bifurcation.

Ciao

[Ben Hollerbach]

Erik,


What exactly changed in golf between 2001 and 2007 that would have had a noticeable impact on club head speed? Improvements in the golf ball and club head would impact ball speed but not club head speed. By 2001 nearly every player on the PGA Tour was using a graphite shaft in their driver. Launch monitors were not widely adopted as training tools until the end or after this period. What's missing that can be directly linked to an increase in club head speed?


You spoke of players being better today, If fitness and technique are not key drivers in their performance improvements then what are?


Greg Norman was using a 190cc MacGregor M43 back in the late 80's / early 90's, An fantastic club but nowhere near as forgiving as Dustin's TaylorMade SIM. Do you really think you can make a strong comparison here? Norman hit more fairways than Dustin with a club that was measurably harder to hit well.


We've gotten a bit in the weeds here. I was proposing a change to the ball that would bring driving and difficulty back to what is was 30 years ago. While I'd love to see a great equipment change around clubs I understand that's a line too far. At the same instance we are unable to lengthen golf courses to present the same level of challenge that was common 30 years ago. Distance has always presented an advantage in the game, but for the longest time that was balanced with a demand on accuracy. In today's pro game, distance is no longer neutralized by accuracy. If we're unable to curb distance directly then let's place a higher demand on accuracy. Once again, I'm not in favor of blanket changes to the courses. It's a broad expense that could have lasting negative impacts on the game. Rather, regulations on the ball would seem to be most appropriate area of influence. A new tour specification that increased ball spin, especially side spin, would lead to a ball that would curve more and demand greater control by those that played it. For those that embraced the workability of the ball they may thrive, while other who only want to hit it straight would suffer and have to adapt. What this may lead to is players compromising on top end distance to find a greater level of accuracy. Which would be more in line with how the game was played 30 years ago.


Unlike courses, changes to golf ball regulations are not permanent and would not need to impact every player. Golf balls are a commodity that players dispose of on a regular basis. Golf balls are also relatively inexpensive, especially compared to a new driver, so asking players to purchase a new type of golf ball would not be a large expense of inconvenience. Also, as the range of golf balls today is very broad, there is no reason a tour spec golf ball could not be slotted into the market without disrupting the current market. Golf is a game that is often touted as one in which any player can play the game as the tour players do, but rarely is that the case. Just look at the equipment industry. The clubs played by tour pros are not the majority of clubs found in a causal golfers golf bag. The casual golfer is marketed game improvement equipment. If there was a tour spec ball that would not change. Titleist could continue to sell the Pro V1 to the masses, but could also sell the Pro V1 (tour spec) for those who want the same challenge as the pros. Interestingly, many slower swing speed players have difficulty generating spin so a higher spinning tour spec ball could actually present a benefit to them over the current ball line up.


 

[Thomas Dai]

In today's pro game, distance is no longer neutralized by accuracy.

Nicely said Ben and not just within the pro game either .... applies to elite amateurs and even average club players etc these days too.
Once upon a time if a player felt they couldn't keep the ball on the fairway with a Driver they chose a club that they reckoned they could hit the fairway with.
Now not only are Drivers easier to hit but when hit off-line other modern generation clubs that are these days routinely in players bags like hybrids/rescues and wedges with multiple lofts and shapes of flanges make it easier for amateurs generally to recover in some progressive way whilst allowing pros and elite players to go for the green with their next shots, even more so when soft greens are the target.
And with softer fairways and 1st-2nd-3rd-cuts of rough shots heading off-line into less than pleasant areas don't run as far off-line as they did in previous eras plus off-fairway areas are much more manicured now than they were in the past.
As has been said herein and elsewhere before, firm ground conditions and wide cut-short grass can in themselves be hazardous as they allow miss-directed shots to bounce and roll further off-line. And with variable off-fairway conditions, the nature of recovery shots changes which ought to prompt variations in playing strategy generally as would firmer greens.
atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

What would be the interest of our members to roll back the ball 15% -20%?  Our driving range does not contain all of our players, but more on the slice side than over the back.  We could easily go green and plant some trees to serve as barriers, but in the years I've been a member, there has not been a liability problem dealing with a ball being too long or far of line.


Having said all this, if the ruling bodies decide to regress the ball, I would comply.  As Mr. Pritchett suggests, I can always move up a set or two and continue to whine, this time about not being able to hit it to my shadow.

Lou,


your comments remind me of various equipment requirements in baseball. And no I'm not speaking of wood vs. composite bats. At virtually every level of base ball (LL, High School, College, Summer Ball, MiLB, MLB, etc...) the formula of ball they play is different. From the outside perspective it's nearly impossible to tell the difference but the players are very aware of it. The ball is tuned in a multitude of ways to be most competitive for specific levels of play.


It is very similar in Tennis, where a single manufacture like Wilson will make nearly identical balls with small differences to the felt on the cover. A heavier felt ball will be slower to a lighter felt ball. Once again, from the outside is incredibly difficult to see the difference.


It does not seem far fetched for golf to follow a similar path. Dictate a few different ball formulas for manufactures to build balls too and then allow organizations to mandate a particular formula for their events. Class 1 may be the general ball of today, Class 4 the ball used at the top level professional tournament, and 2 classes in between for top level amateur / low level professional. Lets say the Texas Golf Association specifies a Class 3 ball for the Texas Open, then when the players come to Oak Hill to qualify they'd be using the Class 3 ball. It would help to keep the scores honest and preserve the course as it is for the membership without asking them to make any changes to their beloved course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

.6810 * 18 = 12.23.6118 * 18 = 11.0112.23 - 11.01 = 1.22 which would be miss slightly more than 1 fairway per round.

18 fairways per round eh? 14, man. And yet I'm the one who doesn't understand the topic.

Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe.  I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.

Well stated. 6500 yards is enough for the vast majority of players, and the game should not be controlled by what the game's best do.

What exactly changed in golf between 2001 and 2007 that would have had a noticeable impact on club head speed? Improvements in the golf ball and club head would impact ball speed but not club head speed.

Longer, lighter shafts with bigger club heads as well as an increasing understanding of what distance can do for the ball. In 2000, Tiger was one of the first players to go to a solid core ball (and he still played a 120+ gram X100 steel shaft in his driver, so I don't think the switch to light graphite is as pre-2000 as you may be thinking). Switching to that type of ball alone let players swing faster. I worked (web development) with a manufacturer at the time and they had clubhead speed data from their Tour players, and from 1995 to 2005 it increased several MPH. The solid core ball didn't curve quite as much, and didn't float or rise up as much, and Titleist was fitting with photo launch monitors in 2005.

Look, players hit the ball farther these days. The equipment is undoubtedly a big part of the reason why. But I don't think it's as much of the reason why as I think you would say it is. I could be wrong, and maybe you think equipment is only 60%, or 65%, but it feels like you think equipment is responsible for 90% of the distance gains. Or 95%.

You spoke of players being better today, If fitness and technique are not key drivers in their performance improvements then what are?

The players of today are better all around — fitness, technique, understanding/coaching, etc. — and there are more of them. Jack Nicklaus has said the same thing. That doesn't mean that players of yester-year are "terrible" or whatever you had me saying.

Greg Norman was using a 190cc MacGregor M43 back in the late 80's / early 90's, An fantastic club but nowhere near as forgiving as Dustin's TaylorMade SIM. Do you really think you can make a strong comparison here? Norman hit more fairways than Dustin with a club that was measurably harder to hit well.

Look, I think Dustin (and 20 other guys) could hit it about as well as Greg Norman hit it, given a little time to adjust, with Greg's equipment. While there was once one Greg Norman, I think there are maybe 10, 20, maybe even 30 now. We understand the golf swing better, we understand launch conditions, ball flight, biodynamics, etc. There are more players, and so the guys who reach the PGA Tour are better players now.

That's my opinion. You disagree. That's all good, man, and since neither of us can "prove" an opinion — it's not a fact — I don't know where we go from there. We just have different opinions.

We've gotten a bit in the weeds here. I was proposing a change to the ball that would bring driving and difficulty back to what is was 30 years ago.

If you're going to make a change — and y'all know I'm not in favor of that — you'd have to change more than just the golf ball, unless you made a ridiculous change to the golf ball. Guys could drive a modern-day balata ball (if you could re-create a new one) much better than from 1985.

In today's pro game, distance is no longer neutralized by accuracy.

Stats show that hitting from the fairway presents about a 70-yard advantage over being in the rough.

Golf is a game that is often touted as one in which any player can play the game as the tour players do, but rarely is that the case. Just look at the equipment industry. The clubs played by tour pros are not the majority of clubs found in a causal golfers golf bag.

There's nothing stopping them from being the same, though. The average softball beer league player isn't going to get an at-bat against whoever Justin Verlander, but the average golfer can hit a ball and a club that are under the same regulations as Justin Thomas better than Justin Thomas every once in awhile, and feel good about that. The hole is 4.25" for everyone, and the courses can have the same defenses, etc.

At virtually every level of base ball (LL, High School, College, Summer Ball, MiLB, MLB, etc...) the formula of ball they play is different.

Three points there:

• The baseball is what I call "shared equipment." The golf ball is not. It's personal equipment. Baseball players get to choose their own gloves, bats, etc.
• Baseball isn't governed by effectively one ruling body worldwide. (The USGA/R&A agree to the rules and regulations, at every level of the game).
• Nobody gets pulled from a college program to play in the World Series. Players have a different path to the top levels of the game that allow them to make adjustments to different regulations. That is not what happens in golf, and one fo the reasons why bifurcation is a non-starter (IMO, and it sounds like you disagree, which is fine).

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I fell that there's a way forward that very few talk about:

I DON'T believe that the distance the ball flies should be regulated.


I DO believe that distance should be regulated as a function of spin. Balls should be compliant along a curve of driver distance relative to wedge spin. So any player can pick any point along the continuum, but you can't pick a ball that goes forever off the driver and still checks up off wedges around the greens and out of bunkers. So Gramps will pick a Slazenger Raw, while DJ will pick a ball that spins around the green and thus will limit his driver distance, as that particular ball will have to be spinnier off of the driver as well. Similarly, if that ball is spinnier off the driver, it will be more difficult to drive the ball accurately, thus the great drivers will be recognized. The elite players will ALWAYS select a ball that gives them the best short game control. This allows for a rollback at the elite level that is driven by player choice, while leaving the average hacker mostly unaffected.


I guess the model tour ball would be something like the old Nike One Platinum that Tiger played. It was quite a bit more spinny than any of the other tour balls of that time and was really almost balata like in it's characteristics. If you cupped your wrist at impact it would balloon like crazy into the wind, for example. Tiger selected it as he's probably the greatest iron player of all time, and it was absolutely dirty around the greens in terms of spin. Of course his driving was squirrely, but it was always squirrely anyways.


As far as what those parameters should be and how to form the compliance curve, I am no Dr. Scientist.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I DO believe that distance should be regulated as a function of spin. Balls should be compliant along a curve of driver distance relative to wedge spin.

Have you messed around with the spin rates here?
https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/

[Thomas Dai]

I DON'T believe that the distance the ball flies should be regulated.
I DO believe that distance should be regulated as a function of spin. Balls should be compliant along a curve of driver distance relative to wedge spin. So any player can pick any point along the continuum, but you can't pick a ball that goes forever off the driver and still checks up off wedges around the greens and out of bunkers. So Gramps will pick a Slazenger Raw, while DJ will pick a ball that spins around the green and thus will limit his driver distance, as that particular ball will have to be spinnier off of the driver as well. Similarly, if that ball is spinnier off the driver, it will be more difficult to drive the ball accurately, thus the great drivers will be recognized. The elite players will ALWAYS select a ball that gives them the best short game control. This allows for a rollback at the elite level that is driven by player choice, while leaving the average hacker mostly unaffected.
I guess the model tour ball would be something like the old Nike One Platinum that Tiger played. It was quite a bit more spinny than any of the other tour balls of that time and was really almost balata like in it's characteristics. If you cupped your wrist at impact it would balloon like crazy into the wind, for example. Tiger selected it as he's probably the greatest iron player of all time, and it was absolutely dirty around the greens in terms of spin. Of course his driving was squirrely, but it was always squirrely anyways.
As far as what those parameters should be and how to form the compliance curve, I am no Dr. Scientist.

So how far the ball goes doesn't matter?
I hope one of your Driver/wedge relevant spin balls that someone, and it doesn't have to be a pro or an elite amateur, hits 300-400-whatever yds from the tee but 100 yds offline doesn't hit another player or greenkeeper out of eye sight on the course or some innocent person as they walk or ride their bike alongside the course. Ian Andrew has written extensively and very well about shot envelopes and the effects of errant shots.
And this is of course before other outside-golf issues like land and water use and population are taken into consideration.
The golf authorities need to act before golf becomes toxic to the public.

Pietro, I don't believe the distance debate is exaggerated. The facts are clear. I do, however, think the issue isn't as important as some believe.  I don't care if -30 wins tournaments. I don't care if guys drive greens 350 yards away. What I care about is preserving great architecture. Those decisions are not in the hands of elite players. It's a terrible mistake to view golf through the lense of what elite players and decision makers for many great courses have yet to learn this. The number of times I read that changes are made to courses to retain challenge levels when a club has a small minority of members who challenge par is staggering. I hold out hope that someday we will learn our lesson. It's foolish thinking because I know great courses have always been altered. Decision makers always have ready reasons for such actions.
Ciao

Specifically, "What I care about is preserving great architecture."
There are already reasons why non-golfers dislike golf. And if golf through additional things like lack of safety, excess-use of land and water etc allows itself to become more disliked by the public, to become toxic to the public, then golf will go kaput and there won't be any great architecture to protect.
Seems to me the best way to preserve great architecture is equipment, especially ball and Driver, rollback.

atb

[Sean_A]

It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?

Ciao

I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades until very recently, and the way many play hickories now.
Or the grownup way the entire R&A world adopted the larger 1.68 ball even though it traveled shorter and was worse in the wind.
ProVslow

[Thomas Dai]

It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?
Ciao

I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades so recently, and the way many play hickories now.
ProVslow

My preference would be a general rollback but some form of bifurcation would certainly be better than the current situation and certainly better than nothing at all and some lessor players may voluntarily join in as well.
Mind back in the 1970’s-1990 the longer 1:62” was still in international non-pro use and those using it didn’t moan when they lost distance to the shorter US originated 1:68” ball. Kind of ironic and amusing in retrospect where the shorter 1:68” ball originated given the location of seemingly most of the opposition to a current potential rollback. Funny old world.
Other concerns re toxicity still stand though.
Atb

[Sean_A]

It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?

Ciao

I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades so recently, and the way many play hickories now.
ProVslow

I do think over time egos of most that hold proper handicaps would knuckle under.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I do think over time egos of most that hold proper handicaps would knuckle under.
Ciao

“Ego within golf” might well make an interesting thread in its own right!
Atb

[Jim Hoak]

Does anyone here draw any conclusions from the tournament on now at Olympia Fields?  Best players, good weather, not absurdly long course.  But the leading scores are right around level par after most of the second round is done.  Rock hard greens, tight fairways, and heavy Chicago rough.  Bombers don’t rule.  Bryson has only hit 2-3 fairways in two days and is well over par.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Curious as to what people think of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVo2xqXG1U

Essentially, Mark Crossfield was able to generate almost the same distances with a ZStar as an old balata ball. He dropped his driver loft and changed his AoA. He could have done some similar things with the 8I, hybrid, and 52° club. He could decrease loft a bit to match up the distances.

Small sample size alert, though, including not only how few balls he hit, but also that it's one guy (and not a particularly long hitter at that).

[Garland Bayley]

.6810 * 18 = 12.23.6118 * 18 = 11.0112.23 - 11.01 = 1.22 which would be miss slightly more than 1 fairway per round.

18 fairways per round eh? 14, man. And yet I'm the one who doesn't understand the topic.

...

Yep, I blew that one.

[Garland Bayley]

I DON'T believe that the distance the ball flies should be regulated.

Does this mean you would do away with the initial velocity standard? If you do that, how much the ball spins won't matter, because they will make super balls that go miles with the spin of the old balata balls.

So how far the ball goes doesn't matter?
I hope one of your Driver/wedge relevant spin balls that someone, and it doesn't have to be a pro or an elite amateur, hits 300-400-whatever yds from the tee but 100 yds offline doesn't hit another player or greenkeeper out of eye sight on the course or some innocent person as they walk or ride their bike alongside the course.

Without the initial velocity standard, your 300-400 estimate would definitely be an underestimate.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that regardless of what you think, a meaningful rollback ain't happening. Maybe just maybe, a softer, more concilitary option is bifurcation?

Ciao

I agree with this.
Perhaps some would end up rolling themselves back, the way sp many 10 handicappers played blades so recently, and the way many play hickories now.
ProVslow

I do think over time egos of most that hold proper handicaps would knuckle under.

Ciao

They could just put a revised ball factor into the handicap calculation and cause handicaps to remain essentially the same. 

[Garland Bayley]

Curious as to what people think of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVo2xqXG1U

Essentially, Mark Crossfield was able to generate almost the same distances with a ZStar as an old balata ball. He dropped his driver loft and changed his AoA. He could have done some similar things with the 8I, hybrid, and 52° club. He could decrease loft a bit to match up the distances.

Small sample size alert, though, including not only how few balls he hit, but also that it's one guy (and not a particularly long hitter at that).

Waste of time. They guys whacked! "Ball speed is the same" over and over again. Hasn't he heard of the initial velocity standard? Essentially he is saying Jack Nicklaus could crank the balata out over 300 yards when he wanted to, so he should have been doing it all the time. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ok Erik, Let's dig back into the weeds...


Tiger may have been one of the first to switch to a solid core ball, but was also one of the last to switch to a graphite shaft. When speaking of the field as a whole its hard to learn a lot from the outliers.


Defend and qualify this statement: "Switching to that type of ball (Solid Core) alone let players swing faster". To suggest that the ball of choice alone has a noticeable bearing on club head speed is laughable.


In 1995 probably 85% of the players on the PGA tour were using steel shafts in their driver, by 2005 probably more than 85% of players were using a graphite shaft. So over that 10 year period, it's not surprising that swing speeds would increase, but when did that occur? From the end of the 1994 season to the released of the Pro V1 in October of 2000 the average driving distance on tour increased 11 yards. With Titanium drivers in wide use by 1995/96, starting a the beginning of the 1997 season there is still an increase of 6.3 yards, or a 2-3 mph difference that would be achieved in the transition from Steel to Graphite before the start of 2001.


By the start of the 2001 season, 20 years ago, virtually every Titleist staffer had switched to the Pro V1.   


To qualify the impact of the Pro V1 and its children on the increase in driving distance lets take a look at the situation surrounding its release in October 2000. the first time it was made available was in Las Vegas, where the year before the average driving distance that week was 280.1 yards. Nearly 50 players put the ball in play that week, resulting in an average driving distance of 290.2 yards. The season-average up to that point was 272.2 yards. From Las Vegas through the end of the season, the average increased to 276.6 yards. Compared to the same events the year prior, that was an increase of 7.8 yards. Clearly the Pro V1 had an acute and profound impact on driving distance that can be separated from everything else at the time.


The USGA and R&A have classified the distance gains from 2001-2003 as related to ball improvements. This would include improvements to the Pro V1, introductions of competing balls, and tuning of clubs to better match the performance of the new balls. From 2004 through the early 2000-teens you see marginal changes in average driving distance, which would align to the data we have around a marginal change in clubhead speed.


In 2006 the average driver length on the PGA tour was 44.5". In 2019 the average driver length peaked at 44.75" This was a period of great shaft exploration on tour with players trying different shaft profiles, weights, and lengths. But yet the average length and club head speed changed very little. You need a significant change in shaft weight to generate a meaningful increase in club head speed.


A few days ago you said 30-40 guys would hit it as far as Greg Norman, yesterday you said that 21 guys could hit it about as well as Norman, at this rate in a weeks time Norman will stand on his own.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()