[Ally Mcintosh]

I decided to start the reduce club number topic because I didn't want to go in to detail about this one... I guess I should have known Tom would go straight for the jugular.

Steve Otto is quite obviously a highly intelligent scientist and a skilled presenter... but whilst I have no doubt that everything he presented us was the truth, I also always get the feeling that he is presenting in a way that tells the story he wants us to hear...

Anyway, the deal according to Steve is that the ball has not improved in the last 8 or 9 years... It was all to do with the Pro-V1... The average golfer does not hit it any further than the old 100 compression ball but the Pro-V1 allowed the spin of the 90 compression balata to be combined with the distance of the old hard ball... Therefore it significantly added to the distance that pros would be able to hit it...

...On a seperate occasion last year, he told us (conjecture probably) that extra distance is a third the ball, a third better equipment and a third better athleticism...

He did indeed say that they wouldn't do anything about the ball until it showed more improvement - a case of "the horse has bolted"...

He also left the door open for reducing the number of clubs... hence the other thread I started...

[Mike_Clayton]

Steve was the guy who tested my club groves at the Scottish Senior Open last summer and we had a long discussion about the ball and club.
He did say that the combination of big headed drivers and the ball was the problem - and without saying it I assumed that meant they regret not limiting the size of the driver when it was obvious that titanium was becoming the key to size but at a playable weight.
You can take all the stats you like - but the point surely is that no one is actually out really watching what is happening and how much the game has changed.And it has changed way more that the stats will tell you because it is so much easier to drive the ball long and straight - for pros.
It is what it is but every great course in Australia is obsolete now in terms of length.

[Jason Topp]

Has anyone bothered to check the stats Golf World posts each week on the overall distances between the year prior to the new regs on balll spin and what is happening now ?

4 yards.  There is enough data at this point that I think that the result will stick for the year.  The stats are pretty interesting because distance seems to be the only number that has changed.  Accuracy from the rough and some other stats have not changed or player performance has improved.  That could be due to the higher spinning balls or could be due to the way courses have been set up.  The rough does seem a bit lighter this year.

[Jason Topp]

I have made the point here before, but the ruling bodies' stand on principle against "bifurcation" ignores the fact that they have made many rules in the past which were different for pros and amateurs.

For many years the R & A ball was smaller than the USGA ball.  In the 1970's, the R & A mandated the bigger U.S. ball for the Open and Amateur championships ... but set no timetable for making the average golfer switch over.  It happened over a period of 15-20 years, gradually, as the rule was put into effect in county championships, club championships, and on back down the chain of command, until eventually somebody in your foursome insisted that everyone should play the bigger ball.

Likewise, some of the restrictions on clubs which have been imposed in recent years are grandfathered in for a long time for amateurs, but in a much shorter time window for the pros.

I agree that bifurcation is the best approach and the objection that "everyone plays the same equipment" is contrary to history.  I do not think many people (other than good amateurs) played balata after surlyn covered balls came out.  It would be interesting to see 1970's/80's sales for titleist balata compared to surlyn and one piece balls that the pros never used.

[Brent Hutto]

...I do not think many people (other than good amateurs) played balata after surlyn covered balls came out.

Define "good amateurs".

When I first started playing golf in the mid-90's I found plenty of Titleist Tour Balata balls in the rough and woods alongside the $15/round public course where I learned to play. Not as many of them as Pinnacles and Top-Flites but balata balls were not uncommon even on courses where the number of sub-5-handicappers was small.

[Jason Topp]

...I do not think many people (other than good amateurs) played balata after surlyn covered balls came out.

Define "good amateurs".

When I first started playing golf in the mid-90's I found plenty of Titleist Tour Balata balls in the rough and woods alongside the $15/round public course where I learned to play. Not as many of them as Pinnacles and Top-Flites but balata balls were not uncommon even on courses where the number of sub-5-handicappers was small.

Brett:

I do not have a precise definition.  I do know that nearly all high school competitive players I played with in the early 80's were not using balata.  Eight out of that group played Division I college golf. 

Perhaps my experience is unique.  I think sales data would be the only way to really get an understanding of how big of a split existed.

[Gary Slatter]

Bruce / Jeff:

Mr. Otto from the R & A portrayed the average distance as being derived from Shot Link, but he did not state exactly whether the number represents

(a)  the average length of all tee shots on par-4 and par-5 holes
(b)  the average length of tee shots in the fairway on the same
(c)  the average length of all tee shots where a driver was hit, or
(d)  the average length of all drivers hit in the fairway.

I doubt it is the last.  It's an important point, because he mentioned that the average roll-out on a fairway is 25 yards ... so if you take the average of all tee shots (some of which get 20 yards less roll), and compare that to a number from the 1990's which was the average for two holes of drives in the fairway, that's not a very fair comparison.

It's Doctor Otto.  He has a problem, his wife is a +3 or 4 handicap player!  They play at Elie.

[Wade Schueneman]

I do not think that the discussion should be just about distance.  Even if lengths are rolled back 10-15% (for the Tour players), isn't there a need for further regulation.  Balls with super low spin rates off of the long clubs and high spin rates off of the short ones are just too much in my opinion.  There should be a give and take.  I think longer, straighter balls should be harder to handle around the greens, and balls offering great feel should be harder to control with the longer clubs.  I think it would be fun to return to strategic ball selection. 

[Bruce Leland]

......
[/quote]
Here is a link that addresses a few of these questions Tom.  http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/101.html  You can select the driving statistics back to 1980. 

Also, to quote the measurement parameters from the site:  "The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not."  Now what it doesn't tell you is whether the two measurement holes each tournament are wide open par 5's or tight little par 4's.  I'm quite certain that many players use clubs other than the driver on the measurement holes from time to time.

[/quote]

Bruce - I don't think that is correct. Yes, back to 1980 you have stats measured on two holes per round. But the data they have since Shotlink was introduced is far more comprehensive, because they are measuring every shot. Steve was very clear about that in his presentation, although as Tom says, it could still hide bits. His data relating to average players was fascinating too: one of the points he made is that since the big drivers are so much easier to hit, more players are hitting driver more of the time.

Adam
[/quote]

Adam-  I may have missed your point as to which part of this arguement is incorrect.  I understand that shotlink provides compreshensive data on every shot played on tour but the statistical analysis of driving distance on the PGA Tour website from 1980 through 2007 was consistant and compiled in accordance with the procedure in bold face above.

 That said, Dr. Otto maintains that the "average" driving distance  on the PGA Tour has remained constant at 287 yards.  By average does he mean the "mean" driving distance.  By the Tour's analysis in 2007 there were 110 players averaging MORE than 287 yards!  In the year 2000 there were only 7.  In 2000 only 1 player averaged over 300 yards, John Daly at 301.4.  In 2007 there were 18 players averaging more than 300 yards.  I suspect there are more in 2010. 

I think Harrison Frazar's statistics are very telling:  in 2,000 he was ranked 7th in driving distance at today's  Tour average of 287.3 yards.  In 2007 he was ranked 9th in driving at 302.8 yards. 

To paraphrase Disraeli "....lies, damn lies and statistics".  Dr Otto needs to look at the statistics.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D.,

The way I (and, franklly, anyone with sense) look at it, the modern golf ball has been permitted to travel too far. As you know very well, there are very serious, even dire consequences which have resulted.

Jeff,

Like what? Global Warming? Terrorism? (9-11 did happen the year the ProV hit the pro tours....coincidence?)

I understand the issue, but don't think the consequences are "dire."

[Rick Shefchik]

Unfortunate consequences would be pros routinely breaking 60.

Dire consequences would be the continued expansion and lengthening of perfectly good golf courses to keep up with the .001 percent who are hitting the ball 340 yards.

I can live with the former. The latter is what directly affects me.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ok... dire was a strong choice of word, Jeff!

However, the push for more length has resulted in negative consequence.

Better? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Dire is the correct choice of word in context...

[Jud_T]

I'm all for free market capitalism, but at exactly what point did the game's ruling bodies become the b*tches of the equipment makers? I assume it was sometime prior to the introduction of the Pro-V1...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I think the thing that will roll the ball back will probably be a non golf factor - water restrictions.  

Even if average golfers aren't getting any better because of all the tech, and maybe pro golfers are getting too good (or at least too long) I once heard a USGA official borrow a line from the cosmetics manufacturers - what a new ball or driver really is selling is "HOPE" not distance.  I think it would be very detrimental to golf if golfers didn't have hope that they could improve.

As Rick says, there is way too much emphasis on the small number of big hitters.  But, even the 6300 yard player likes the idea of having a set of tees behind him at over 7000 yards, somehow equating distance with course quality, no?  Maybe the big golf issue is to retrain the mindset of the average golfer.  90+% of courses don't need back tees any further back than 6850 yards, which would accomodate 97-99% of all play they will recieve.

If we can build another set of tees and allow carry over natives so as to not add irrigated turf, then no problem with tees at 7200+ yards (this is what I try to do) For that matter, I know many courses that simply lie about their yardage.  I think I will counsel some future course simply to put back tees on the scorecard and never build them.  No one really goes looking for them anyway, and I think they could pull the scam off for years without being caught!

[Gary Slatter]

You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.

Tom:  Others can confirm whether or not I am correct but I believe these are all examples

Bowling - has ordered a number of changes to lane conditions and ball specifications.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling


Tennis - I believe but cannot confirm that tennis has slowed down the ball at the professional level

Baseball - has refused to adopt the aluminum bat at the major league level.  As a result certain amateur wood bat leagues remain (Cape Cod league); outlawed the spitball pitch, lowered the mound to make pitching more difficult

Golf - outlawed previously legal grooves, set coefficient of restitution limitations on drivers after manufacturers began producing them, outlawed croquet style putting, there are probably others

Cricket - outlawed a variety of  improved bats after certain individuals used them

Is the football the same size and shape in the NFL, CFL and NCAA ?   Has it changed to smaller?

[Jason Topp]

You're very likely right about that but what we should probably consider here is the matter of degree at any time or in the over-all. If you don't think so then just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.

Tom:  Others can confirm whether or not I am correct but I believe these are all examples

Bowling - has ordered a number of changes to lane conditions and ball specifications.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling


Tennis - I believe but cannot confirm that tennis has slowed down the ball at the professional level

Baseball - has refused to adopt the aluminum bat at the major league level.  As a result certain amateur wood bat leagues remain (Cape Cod league); outlawed the spitball pitch, lowered the mound to make pitching more difficult

Golf - outlawed previously legal grooves, set coefficient of restitution limitations on drivers after manufacturers began producing them, outlawed croquet style putting, there are probably others

Cricket - outlawed a variety of  improved bats after certain individuals used them

Is the football the same size and shape in the NFL, CFL and NCAA ?   Has it changed to smaller?

Actually in the NFL they altered the rules related to footballs used for kicking.  In order to combat the effectiveness of field goal kickers and their practice of picking out specific balls favorable for kicking the NFL uses specifically designated balls for kicking.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Aside from the fact that the sports mentioned above actually have introduced legislation to halt equipment advances, there is a fundamental difference...

Each of them introduced those measures so as to ensure that there was no imbalance between two opposing sides performing different tasks.

Cricket outlawed a bat so that batting did not outweigh bowling...

Tennis slowed down the ball so that serve and volley did not become too prevalent resulting in breaks of serve occurring even less frequently and spectators not being rewarded with ralleys...

Golf needs to outlaw the ball so that the playing fields don't become irrelevant... In golf, unlike all other sports, the playing field is the true opposition... It is a harder sell though... The others have a more direct result in the public's enjoyment and therefore the revenue that is received through spectators, TV rights and growing of the game... outside a hardcore few, most people don't see the damage that golf is doing to itself... and you could argue that revenue is better because of the advanced ball...

[Garland Bayley]

... just name me a sport in the world that has ever rolled anything back or backwards with the effectveness of their implements or implements and balls in their histories.

Baseball bats. The manufacturers many not have made hollow bats, but the players did, and they were rolled back.
The was a movement to roll back aluminum bats a few years ago, I don't follow close enough to know if they were rolled back.
Baseball gloves. The rollback in size.

Golf of course. The roll back to the initial velocity. The roll back to the total overall distance. The rollback to the ball dimple symmetry. The roll back in COR. The roll back in MOI. The roll back in grooves.

Football has had several roll backs in the rules to contain violence and injuries.

Hasn't track and field had to roll back the pole?

[Richard Phinney]

The curve on hockey sticks was also rolled back.

[Bill_McBride]

The ball was too long in 2003, why use that for the benchmark?   Does "sell out" work?

Bill, remember the Chicken Little "sky is falling" crowd that extrapolated to the conclusion that, "guys are going to drive it 400 yards."

What I saw seems to be confirmed.  The main increase was a one-time shift as professional golfers finally stopped using some real bad golf balls.  Titleist Professional and Titleist Tour Balata being the most prominent.

Can 400 yard drives be far behind?  There were several +350 yard drives in the Accenture.  I played there the week before and it wasn't playing very firm and it wasn't very windy.

[Ken Moum]

Aside from the fact that the sports mentioned above actually have introduced legislation to halt equipment advances, there is a fundamental difference...

Each of them introduced those measures so as to ensure that there was no imbalance between two opposing sides performing different tasks.

Cricket outlawed a bat so that batting did not outweigh bowling...

Tennis slowed down the ball so that serve and volley did not become too prevalent resulting in breaks of serve occurring even less frequently and spectators not being rewarded with ralleys...

Golf needs to outlaw the ball so that the playing fields don't become irrelevant...

More importantly, IMHO, is that shift in playing style has made it virtually impossible for the slightly underpowered player to beat a power player by outmanuevering him.  Unless the course is made ridiculously difficult with narrow fairways and deep rough.

In golf, unlike all other sports, the playing field is the true opposition... It is a harder sell though... The others have a more direct result in the public's enjoyment and therefore the revenue that is received through spectators, TV rights and growing of the game... outside a hardcore few, most people don't see the damage that golf is doing to itself... and you could argue that revenue is better because of the advanced ball...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I don't know, can they?  That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?

I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards.  And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots.  That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour.  Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.

I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences.

[Garland Bayley]

Bill,

I don't know, can they?  That is an example of chicken little thinking, fear with no facts, isn't it?

I don't know about this year but in 2008 there were exactly 16 drives on the PGA Tour over 400 yards.  And if there were 40 tournaments X 144 players x 3 rounds average X 14 tee shots there were almost 242,000 full tee shots.  That means that only 0.00004% of tee shots went that far on the PGA Tour and I doubt many more than that went further OFF the PGA Tour.  Of rounded 28 Million rounds played in the USA last year, if there were the same amount by % then there may have been an additional 120 tee shots hit that far.

I am in the camp that says we seem to spend about 99% of our time worrying about 0.00004% of occurrences.

Actually Jeff, more would go over 400 yards off the PGA Tour than on it. It is a well known fact that the Nationwide Tour players hit it longer than the PGA Tour players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am surprised Mr. Otto did not use the better conditioned athlete as an excuse for moving the tee, which is about the only excuse available for golfers hitting farther if it is not the ball or the clubs. I am perplexed as to why the R&A is charged with growing the game. It seems as if the desire or need to grow the game is to meet the insatiable needs of the golf industry including all the tour bodies. But is that good reason to grow the game. It seemed like the game was doing well in the 60’s when I was taking up the game and the implements and balls would seem like quaint museum pieces compared to today’s gargantuan drivers and irons that are impossible not to hit well. Is it really necessary to have these equipment advances to grow the game, is it really necessary to grow the game, isn’t the nature of the game sufficient to attract enough interest without compromising its great courses. I think a couple of metal woods and for me 2 iron through 9 iron is necessary. But after that I would limit the player to 2 wedges. It seems like any limit on clubs should be at that end of the club range. Fewer wedges means more skill required to create shots around the greens. But, I guess that disscussion is going on another thread. Growing the game is a crutch. R&A, NGF, PGA, please stop trying to grow the game. Let it be.

Kelly,

I agree.

What I've always wondered is:  "grow the game for whom ?"   The manufacturers ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()