News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #300 on: February 23, 2014, 05:11:05 PM »
Jim,

Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #301 on: February 23, 2014, 05:47:51 PM »
Jim,

I know the example in this thread is the 18th at PBGC, but do you really want to see golfers hitting 3-metals up over the trees when they tee off on # 13 at ANGC, leaving them an 8-iron into the green ?

Is that how the architect intended the hole to be played ?

Like the Germans and the Maginot Line, golfers are ignoring the architects defenses and conquering the hole by circumventing the defensive features.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #302 on: February 23, 2014, 06:17:37 PM »
Jim,

Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?

With respect, Bryan, I think this is a fallacious argument.  Elite players have always been rewarded for their abilities and they would be amply rewarded even after a rollback.  Or do you believe that they weren't being "rewarded" for the past century before these last big distance jumps?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #303 on: February 23, 2014, 08:13:13 PM »
Bryan,

I think the genie is out of the bottle with respect to optimal launch conditions. 20 years ago, these things were really just vaguely spoken about with very little real science behind the effort. That part of golf isn't going away no matter what the clubs and balls look like...and quite naturally, the time and energy spent on and for optimization is heavily weighted in the best players.



Pat,

I don't care one bit about a 5 handicapper who hits the ball 300+ yards. How many people at Mountain Ridge, on its busiest day, break par while making the architecture obsolete?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #304 on: February 23, 2014, 09:01:55 PM »
Jim,

Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?

With respect, Bryan, I think this is a fallacious argument.  Elite players have always been rewarded for their abilities and they would be amply rewarded even after a rollback.  Or do you believe that they weren't being "rewarded" for the past century before these last big distance jumps?

David has a nicer word for it than I do. ;)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #305 on: February 23, 2014, 10:03:19 PM »
David

I agree entirely. Why should we think of golf as some objective goal of distance or accuracy. The long hitter is the long hitter regardless of what equipment regime there is. The straight hitter was/is the straight hitter. If Dustin Johnson played in an equipment regime where he maxed out at 290 yards and everyone else was proportionally shorter would anyone care or even notice if they were not told?

Jim,

Is the logical extension of this thinking that we should roll back the ball so that elite players are not rewarded for their highly developed skills and abilities to make consistent, high speed, optimal strikes of the golf ball?

With respect, Bryan, I think this is a fallacious argument.  Elite players have always been rewarded for their abilities and they would be amply rewarded even after a rollback.  Or do you believe that they weren't being "rewarded" for the past century before these last big distance jumps?

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #306 on: February 23, 2014, 10:22:21 PM »
David,

So, we circle around. How amply elite golfers were rewarded in the past or are rewarded in the present depends on the slope of the respective distance / swing speed "curves". Given we don't know how or if the slopes are different then we don't really know how amply they were rewarded in the past compared with today.

Jim,

The issue is defining the  proportionality.  DJ hitting it 290 vs 320 is fine with me. If the proverbial short hitter today  is 200 yards then what would proportionally shorter be in the roll back world. I think David wants it to be less than it currently is - I.e. less than 120 yards.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 10:34:54 PM by Bryan Izatt »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #307 on: February 23, 2014, 10:49:00 PM »
Bryan,

David Moriarty is correct. Longer hitters have always been rewarded, e.g., Jack Nicklaus. A rollback won't change that.
Tim Weiman

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #308 on: February 24, 2014, 01:06:55 AM »
Jim Sherma,

I agree. Some here seem to think that ever increasing driving distance by the big hitters is some sort of God given inalienable right, as if tinkering with the rules would be akin to a violation of the laws of nature.  I don't see it that way.  Golf is and always has been defined and controlled by rules, including equipment rules.  Technology has developed such that existing rules no longer keep the game in balance, and the rules need to be updated to fix this.

I don't have the quote in front of me, but MacKenzie made a very similar point  to yours when discussing the equipment.  In the game of golf, "long" is relative.
____________________________________________________________

Bryan,  

It seems you are trying to parley the lack of certainty regarding some of the specific statistics into uncertainty regarding the broader trend, and I don't think that follows. As much as I enjoy some of these technical discussions, I don't see all that much uncertainty regarding the direction golf has been heading.
    - Are you denying that elite players hit the ball substantially farther than they did a few decades ago?  
    - Are you denying that average players have gained relatively little distance over the past few decades in comparison?

As for what you call "defining proportionality" we are fortunate in that we have the entire history of golf to look back on to get an idea how the balance worked between long and short over time.  If the difference between long and short  was acceptably "proportional" between long and short 1980 or 1990 or 1996, then shooting for a similar proportionality might be a way to go about it.  
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 01:31:37 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #309 on: February 24, 2014, 03:45:40 AM »
David,

As you tar and feather "some", maybe you should identify who the "some" are.

Analogies never work on here, but let me try one anyway.  When I was younger, I used to play hockey as well as golf.  The gap between my skills in each sport and the those of the professionals in each was quite wide.  I might be the slow swinger compared to the elite fast swingers relative to each sport. 

Today, I watched the Olympic men's hockey  gold final game.  Not very long ago I re-watched some of the 1972 Canada Russia hockey series - a seminal event in hockey.  The difference in skill and speed between today's game and that of 1972 is astonishing.  Even if I was young again my hockey abilities would be very much further removed from those of professional players today than they were from the 1972 players.  The current crop of players are bigger, faster, stronger, and more broadly skilled than those of 1972.  It is no wonder to me at all that the gap in my "amateur" skills and the professionals' have widened over the years. I'd say that in every sport the gap between elite levels and the amateur rank and file has widened.  To go back to some previous level of proportionality seems to me to be the wishful thinking of Luddites.  These guys are good - and they are more and more better than us.

Vis-a-vis your two questions, no I don't dispute that elite players hit the ball substantially farther than they did a few decades ago.  I've been posting my annual graph of average distance on the PGA Tour for some years now.  To me, based on the blue best fit polynomial curve in the chart below, I see a period of distance stability from 1985 to 1995 followed by a gain of 25 yards or so from 1995 to 2005 followed by another period of stability from 2005 until 2013.  I attribute that gain to the ball, the 460cc driver head, lighter driver shafts (both resulting in higher  swing speeds), optimization, better conditioning of most elite athletes, and probably faster course conditions.  I have no idea, nor apparently does anybody else, as to how much each contributed to the gain.




Re the second question, it is too nebulous to answer and there is no data that I know of to inform an answer.  What is an average player?  What is relatively little distance?  If you ever find some reasonably statistically meaningful data comparing driving distances for 1995 and 2013, I'd be happy to go with whatever that data tells us.

From a purely personal point of view, I was 18 years younger in 1995 and I have lost at least 5 mph over that 18 years.  I'm definitely on the downside of golfing ability curve.  Yet I still am capable of getting the ball out there the same, or even maybe a bit further than I was able to 18 years ago.  If I were to somehow magically be able to get back my laminate driver and some new Wilson Staff's, I'd love to do the side by side comparison with modern equipment.  I suspect that the gain from the modern I&B would significant.


Re your comments on historical proportionality, perhaps you could specify what you think the right proportionality and define the parameters for the elite and average golfers that contributed to that "correct" historical proportionality.  How would you deal with the likely fact that there is a greater gap in swing speeds today than there was 20 or 50 or whatever years ago.  Swing speed is key to distance. 

 

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #310 on: February 24, 2014, 08:59:08 AM »
I've read David's comments to indicate he wants the advantage the longer hitters picked up by switching to the ProV1 (and it's competing balls) rolled back. In essence, a bogey golfer was likely using a hard ball pre-2000 and is still using a hard ball (even if it's a ProV) so they gained virtually nothing. Better players were using soft balls (because you couldn't chip with a hard ball) and switched to hard balls and picked up ~30 yards.

First of all, is that correct, David?

If so, how would you tell better players they couldn't play a hard ball if they felt like it? Let's say the ProV (and similar balls) is gone, how can you tell elite players they can't play a DT, or Pinnacle?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #311 on: February 24, 2014, 12:00:01 PM »
...
Re your comments on historical proportionality, perhaps you could specify what you think the right proportionality and define the parameters for the elite and average golfers that contributed to that "correct" historical proportionality.  How would you deal with the likely fact that there is a greater gap in swing speeds today than there was 20 or 50 or whatever years ago.  Swing speed is key to distance. 

 

One major reason that swing speed has advanced is that the ball allows it. Jack always had the ability to bomb it 300 yards plus. However, he intelligently and judiciously used that ability, because it was fraught with dangers that it is no longer fraught with today.

Wild hitting amateurs have always taken advantage of the hard ball, but as David wrote above, since they were no threat to shoot low scores, it has never been a priority to modify golf courses to reign them in.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #312 on: February 24, 2014, 12:01:40 PM »
...

If so, how would you tell better players they couldn't play a hard ball if they felt like it? Let's say the ProV (and similar balls) is gone, how can you tell elite players they can't play a DT, or Pinnacle?

Did you get your question right? I don't understand what you are asking.

My best guess at what the answer may be would be the regulation that Doug and I have supported on this thread.

As an aside, do you think that baseball should allow engineering tricks to allow pictures to get the baseball to move more when they throw it?
Or, do you think that baseball should allow engineering tricks to help hitters by restricting the amount a baseball moves when pitchers throw it?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 01:30:33 PM by GJ Bailey »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #313 on: February 24, 2014, 12:51:46 PM »
If you ever find some reasonably statistically meaningful data comparing driving distances for 1995 and 2013, I'd be happy to go with whatever that data tells us.

According to the R&A . . .
"Each season since 1996 we have been gathering driving distances from players with a range of handicaps and the average driving distance in 2012 for this cohort was 208 yards compared to 200 yards in 1996; an increase of 8 yards. . . Using driver-only data the increase in driving distance from 1996 to 2012 is only 3 yards."

You've probably heard the one about the doubter who looks up at the sky and pleads, "God, if you really exist, just give me some sort of sign, no matter how small, and I will believe."  Immediately thereafter lightening strikes him and heaven rains cows from the sky.  Yet, unfazed, he again looks up at the sky and continues, "Like I was saying, God, just show me some sign, anything, no matter how small . . ."


Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #314 on: February 24, 2014, 01:32:52 PM »
Today, I watched the Olympic men's hockey  gold final game.  Not very long ago I re-watched some of the 1972 Canada Russia hockey series - a seminal event in hockey.  The difference in skill and speed between today's game and that of 1972 is astonishing.  Even if I was young again my hockey abilities would be very much further removed from those of professional players today than they were from the 1972 players.  The current crop of players are bigger, faster, stronger, and more broadly skilled than those of 1972.  It is no wonder to me at all that the gap in my "amateur" skills and the professionals' have widened over the years. I'd say that in every sport the gap between elite levels and the amateur rank and file has widened.  To go back to some previous level of proportionality seems to me to be the wishful thinking of Luddites.  These guys are good - and they are more and more better than us.

Vis-a-vis your two questions, no I don't dispute that elite players hit the ball substantially farther than they did a few decades ago.  I've been posting my annual graph of average distance on the PGA Tour for some years now.  To me, based on the blue best fit polynomial curve in the chart below, I see a period of distance stability from 1985 to 1995 followed by a gain of 25 yards or so from 1995 to 2005 followed by another period of stability from 2005 until 2013.  I attribute that gain to the ball, the 460cc driver head, lighter driver shafts (both resulting in higher  swing speeds), optimization, better conditioning of most elite athletes, and probably faster course conditions.  I have no idea, nor apparently does anybody else, as to how much each contributed to the gain.




In the first paragraph you provide an illustration of how "elite" athletes are bigger/stronger than they used to be.  In the second paragraph, you list that among potential reasons why distance increased during 1995 to 2005.  I don't see any reason why you think that is limited to elite athletes, though.  Why shouldn't amateur athletes get bigger/stronger for whatever reason you may attribute to this happening for elite athletes?

The golf swing involves fast twitch muscles, and those are very hard to improve - you're mostly "born with speed".  I won't say you can't train for it, but it is very difficult - if you want to try, read up on the exercises Bruce Lee did.  I suspect if he ever tried to swing a golf club, and learned proper technique, he'd have been one of the longer hitters in the world despite his size.  Possibly some on tour are using his methods, but if so I'm unaware of it.  The difficulty and time commitment required would steer away anyone without a Tiger level of dedication to the game.  Traditional conditioning is really only going to reduce age related losses, or at best result in marginal improvements in the fast twitch muscles.

The bigger question is, how do you explain the distance increase happening over only about a 10 year period in the 30+ years covered by your graph?  If we look at 1980 to 2013, we went from an average drive of 256 yards to an average drive of 290 yards.  From 1995 to 2005 we went from 262 to 289.  So 27 of the 34 yards happened in that one decade, and most of the rest happened from 1980-1985.  I can't see conditioning being much of a factor at all with the distance gains being time-restricted in that way.  Did fitness not improve at all from 1985 to 1995, or since 2005?  It seems unlikely to be a factor responsible for more than a yard or two at most.

I think pretty much the entire increase can be pinned on equipment.  Either directly from the equipment itself, or from the equipment enabling faster swings due to lighter materials or a bigger margin for error.  It seems very likely the small bump from 1980 to 1985 can be explained by the introduction of metal woods on tour.  The reduction in loss of distance from mishits would help them gain a few yards - amateurs probably gained more yards on their average drive, because their mishits are larger and thus they would benefit more.  Metal woods probably served to narrow the gap between pros and amateurs, if only slightly.

I suspect that the bump from 1995 to 2000 would be explained by the popularization of graphite shafts on tour, and the Professional and similar balls that were a modest improvement over balata balls the vast majority of pros were using up until that time.  However, while I know that graphite shafts were popularized among amateurs well before they became popular on tour, I don't know the timeline of their introduction on tour.  I also don't recall exactly when the Professional was introduced, and if Titleist's competitors introduced a similar ball before they did.  Anyone know?
My hovercraft is full of eels.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #315 on: February 24, 2014, 01:36:20 PM »
Seriously, Bryan, I am not out to tar and feather anyone, but I do wish you were as intellectually rigorous with your own claims, anecdotes, and theories as you are with everyone else's.    

You keep circling back to swing speed and athleticism as having played a large role in the increased distances. I don't deny that these things may have played some sort of role (especially as young players develop within this new equipment regime,) but I think you and others are dramatically overstating the significance of these variables in helping explain the changes over the relevant period.  You never seem to accept my efforts to do so, but you are savvy enough with the numbers so that you could go into the data and (as best you can) try to control the swing speed and athleticism.  If you do, I think you will see that the primary factor is indeed changing technology.

For example, go back and take a look at the distances gained by the golfers who switched to the ProV1x from 2002 to 2003.  These numbers focus on individuals over a relatively short period of time and so the numbers ought to do a pretty decent job of controlling for swing speed, athleticism, and conditioning.  Yet the huge gains are there, due to changing technology.  For just one example, Ernie Els didn't suddenly become more athletic or drastically change his swing or get in much better condition between the last tournament in 2002 and the first tournament in 2003.  But he did change his equipment, and when he changed his equipment he suddenly could hit the ball 20+ yards further.  

Or take the Andrew Rice experiment.  The same golfer on the same day with the same swing speed hit first generation of the ProV1x twenty-plus (20+) yards further on average than he did the first generation ProV1.  That is technology and NOT a change in swing speed, athleticism, or conditioning.   Or maybe I am wrong, but if so let's see the evidence . . .

At age 48, Fred Couple's club head speed was reportedly 118 mph.  Do you really think that the newer golfers swing significantly faster now than 20 years ago?    

Where are the studies indicating a significant increase in swing speed or athleticism has played a major role in the increased distances?  Likewise, where is the study indicating that what you call the "likely fact" that the gap in swing speeds has increased?  I understand the anecdotal appeal of such a claim, and there may be a grain of truth to it, but I simply don't buy that it is responsible for the magnitude of changes we have seen.  Also, Bryan, keep in mind that swing speed and technology are very much related.  Lighter shafts, better materials, less twisting, different, larger club heads.  All theoretically allow a golfer to swing harder without adverse consequences.  That is technology.
______________________________

I used to read that the tour swing speed was 110 mph on average.  Now I read that it about 112 mph on average.   According to the Quintavalla study, at those swing speeds with the tour balls, this increase in average swing speed would only be worth about 5 yards in distance gain, at most.   In contrast, your chart shows a jump in yardage of over 30 yards.  
______________________________
 
As for your hockey analogy, I understand your point but don't think it is a good fit to the situation in golf.  For one thing, most of the change in golf has come from technology.  For another this is the most important issue of how the golfers interact with the courses.  In this regard, baseball might be a better metaphor.  In professional baseball the players have obviously become bigger, faster, and stronger and some would argue more skilled.   But because the implements are regulated the game still fits in the field of play, yet the players are still able to showcase their talents.   Manufacturers could easily build balls and bats to allow the best athletes to better showcase their skills, but the game would no longer fit the fields as we know them.   Would baseball be a better game if every few years new balls and bats were introduced, thus making the balls fly much farther and faster?   I don't think so.

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #316 on: February 24, 2014, 02:06:48 PM »
I've read David's comments to indicate he wants the advantage the longer hitters picked up by switching to the ProV1 (and it's competing balls) rolled back. In essence, a bogey golfer was likely using a hard ball pre-2000 and is still using a hard ball (even if it's a ProV) so they gained virtually nothing. Better players were using soft balls (because you couldn't chip with a hard ball) and switched to hard balls and picked up ~30 yards.

First of all, is that correct, David?

Sort of.  I agree that better players have probably gained at least 30 yards on average players, and I think that rolling back those elite gains would go a long ways toward preserving the architectural integrity of golf courses without necessarily hurting the average player.   I don't necessarily agree with your explanation of why average players gained nothing.  I think average players were using hard balls pre-2000 primarily because those balls were cheaper and more durable. You are assuming that average players hit those balls farther than they would have hit a Balata or a Professional, but I don't accept that assumption.

Quote
If so, how would you tell better players they couldn't play a hard ball if they felt like it? Let's say the ProV (and similar balls) is gone, how can you tell elite players they can't play a DT, or Pinnacle?

I am not advocating returning everything to some previous date.  Rather, I am suggesting regulating the slope of the aggregate distance curve. Elite golfers could use any conforming ball on the market, and manufacturers could still focus certain products at certain market segments, but in so doing they'd have to stay at or underneath the slope for the entire line.  If Pinnacles truly performed the same distance-wise as do ProV1x's, the Pinnacles would be non-conforming for everyone.   But I don't think Pinnacles did perform the same way distance-wise or otherwise, and I don't think anyone would be longing for the days of the rock hard Pinnacle.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #317 on: February 24, 2014, 02:16:09 PM »

I think average players were using hard balls pre-2000 primarily because those balls were cheaper and more durable. You are assuming that average players hit those balls farther than they would have hit a Balata or a Professional, but I don't accept that assumption.


You think 15 handicappers would hit balatas further than DT's or Pinnacles?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #318 on: February 24, 2014, 02:26:41 PM »

In the first paragraph you provide an illustration of how "elite" athletes are bigger/stronger than they used to be.  In the second paragraph, you list that among potential reasons why distance increased during 1995 to 2005.  I don't see any reason why you think that is limited to elite athletes, though.  Why shouldn't amateur athletes get bigger/stronger for whatever reason you may attribute to this happening for elite athletes?



Doug,

Elite players have improved their technique for hitting the ball far, which the new equipment encourages, while the average player has not. This is part of the definition of elite I think.

That said, when the average player catches one today they gain at least as much as the better players did.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #319 on: February 24, 2014, 02:29:01 PM »
You think 15 handicappers would hit balatas further than DT's or Pinnacles?

I have never tested it nor have I seen any tests but I would be surprised if, on average, 15 handicappers hit old Pinnacles as far as they could hit a Tour Professional or a Tour Balata.  I might exclude concrete-like conditions, but not even sure I would need to.  

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I'd certainly not concede the point without some sort of proof.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #320 on: February 24, 2014, 02:34:59 PM »
Because greater spin means greater carry with slower swing speeds?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #321 on: February 24, 2014, 02:37:47 PM »
Regardless, this sidebar misses my point.

My point is that better players have begun hitting Pinnacles (with a spinning cover...), which they do (and always have) hit further than balatas. That's where the perception of technology benefiting elite players and not average players comes from.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #322 on: February 24, 2014, 02:46:52 PM »
I'd like to see the study putting an old rock Pinnacle up against a ProV1x.  I'd be very, very surprised if an elite golfer who could routinely hit the ProV1x 310+ yards would get the same distance out of an old rock Pinnacle. 

Do you really think that the ProV1x is comparable distance wise to the old rock Pinnacle?  How about if we just focused on carry distance?  Still comparable?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #323 on: February 24, 2014, 02:52:39 PM »
Yes. Probably not identical, but very similar. My guess is the Pinnace will have higher speed off the clubhead but lower spin so you'd tweak the head and shaft combination to get a higher launch.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is it not a big deal Dustin Johnson hit 3w/6i on the 18th green at PB?
« Reply #324 on: February 24, 2014, 02:59:55 PM »

I think average players were using hard balls pre-2000 primarily because those balls were cheaper and more durable. You are assuming that average players hit those balls farther than they would have hit a Balata or a Professional, but I don't accept that assumption.


You think 15 handicappers would hit balatas further than DT's or Pinnacles?

There are lots of 15 handicappers. Some will hit balatas farther than DT's or Pinnacles, some will not.
At 23 handicap, I once beat a 3 handicap gross on a full sized, wide open (I could hit it wild and still recover) course. His handicap was developed on an executive course, where his short hits didn't hurt him, and his straight ball helped him. I am sure he would hit balatas farther, while I definitely hit Pinnacles farther. (In fact, I was probably playing Pinnacles at the time as they were my favorite ball for awhile.)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back