[Thomas Dai]

Would you be happy to play courses 75% the length of those you currently play using a golf ball that only goes 75% the distance of the present one you use?
If not 75% what % would you be happy with?
Just curious.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Would you be happy to play courses 75% the length of those you currently play using a golf ball that only goes 75% the distance of the present one you use?
If not 75% what % would you be happy with?
Just curious.
Atb

Si, if everyone else had their ball capped at 75% and course features matched the new distance.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sure, but a question:


Is it accepted engineering that hitting the ball with a 5% faster swing results in 5% more distance ?  Because if not, the 75% ball isn't going to be 75% for everyone ... it could be 80% for some guys and 70% for others, and it would be important to know which way the curve is bent.

[jeffwarne]

absolutely
I've done iit many times not by choice when injured-always playing the nearest tee to the green.
It's very easy in an area like New York or the UK where many of the courses were originally designed near this length and there are few walkbacks.


The scale is better as well as fairways are relatively wider,fewer balls go in the schmoo.


Within a week one wouldn't notice.
The same as playing on a 35 degree day, one adjusts.
Hitting a ball 600 plus feet is still a long way in the grand scheme of sports-the chicks dig the long ball crap drives me crazy-it's a relative game

Count me in

[John Kavanaugh]

No. Based on my current play I lose a ball once every 300 shots. My younger stronger opponents lose balls every 30 shots. My gut tells me that a shorter flighted ball will increase my ball losses, as I will require even more club to carry hazards. While at the same time decrease the ball losses of my opponents as they hit the ball less far off line. I have spent years getting older and learning the old man down the middle game and have little interest in giving up my advantage just because most golfers lack the discipline to swing just hard enough.

[jeffwarne]

Would you be happy to play courses 75% the length of those you currently play using a golf ball that only goes 75% the distance of the present one you use?
If not 75% what % would you be happy with?
Just curious.
Atb

Si, if everyone else had their ball capped at 75%.


Ciao

I assume you mean everyne else in your game?
Otherwise why wuld you care?


but even then, wouldn't it be fun and more social to have a match against an 80 year old with similar skills off the same tees while he plays conventional warfare?

[John Kavanaugh]

A person who runs the ball along the ground is going to be punished more than a golfer who flies the ball a long way. I'm guessing that coefficient of friction of air is less than that of ground. The 75% ball is not going to roll out an equal distance that it flies.


My guess is based on the fact that if hitting runners produced the longest drive per energy spent everyone would be doing it.

[Tom_Doak]

A person who runs the ball along the ground is going to be punished more than a golfer who flies the ball a long way. I'm guessing that coefficient of friction of air is less than that of ground. The 75% ball is not going to roll out an equal distance that it flies.


My guess is based on the fact that if hitting runners produced the longest drive per energy spent everyone would be doing it.

This goes back to my question above.  I don't know the answer.  You are certainly right, to the extent that every shot is likely to roll out less far than it does now.  But low-trajectory players now get a higher % of roll-out to carry than the pros do, and that part shouldn't change.

The physics of making a 75% ball are probably not nearly as easy as some here assume they will be.  Either they're going to have to make balls out of entirely different materials [like feathers  , or lead], or they're going to have to make them bigger, or lighter, or possibly a combination of all three.

[Jeff Schley]

This is a physics challenge for a Ph.D thesis if anyone knows someone looking for one perhaps.  I have no problem with this proposal and actually support rolling back the ball.  Why change courses, which are inherently expensive and altered from their original state.  I mean wouldn't you just love Bo Derek, Cindy Crawford, Pamela Anderson, have I listed enough? Ok, I'll add a few more Heather Locklear, Halle Berry, etc. in their original unchanged by plastic surgery and botox etc?  Think of your all time crush at their peak of beauty and then taking watching her slowly slip away into aging affects and changes to hang onto youth.

Why change the all time greats if we can simply roll back the ball?

[Kalen Braley]

Thomas, i'm curious what the premise for this question is.


As far as I know, the vast majority of golfers aren't in "need" of a rollback.  Most of us, have benefited little from the all the improvements in the last 20 years....


If i had to guess, 99.9% of courses are perfectly fine for normal every day play, it only seems to be high profile events with the freaks of nature...aka...professional and top level AM golfers that are causing the distance grief.

[Peter Flory]

Based on my personal experience with hickory golf, 85% is a good scale.  ie a 6,000 yard layout instead of 7,000 yards still feels like the same sport once you mentally adjust.  At that distance, you're right back in the sweet spot of golden age distances and you eliminate walk backs on almost all courses (classic and modern). 

And in many ways, the shorter course with the same dynamic has a better overall feel to it, especially if the conditions allow for some roll out.  The fairways become effectively wider from shorter tees and so it makes playing for angles more achievable.  All of this would be pretty silly with 460cc drivers though.

But I agree with Kalen in that it's a small percentage of the overall golfing population that hits it too far for a 6,000 yard course even with the best of technology.  A square path with a persimmon outdrives an over the top hack with an M2 every time. 

Even most mid level amateur tournaments- like state am qualifiers where the average handicap is only a few over scratch, are played on courses around 6,700 yards and very few break par.  As a specific example, take Kankakee Elks (a Langford course that is close to it's original shape at 6,596 yards) in a qualifier for last year's IL state am.  In a field of 44 players, the lowest score was -1 and the field average was +7.3.  There were 2 eagles, 90 birdies, 240 bogeys, 61 doubles, and 16 dreaded others.   One of the 2 players who led the field had no birdies on the par 5s.  And while this field isn't a US Am field, it's still players who are at a level that 95% of golfers can only dream of. 

[jeffwarne]

A person who runs the ball along the ground is going to be punished more than a golfer who flies the ball a long way. I'm guessing that coefficient of friction of air is less than that of ground. The 75% ball is not going to roll out an equal distance that it flies.


My guess is based on the fact that if hitting runners produced the longest drive per energy spent everyone would be doing it.

The physics of making a 75% ball are probably not nearly as easy as some here assume they will be.  Either they're going to have to make balls out of entirely different materials [like feathers  , or lead], or they're going to have to make them bigger, or lighter, or possibly a combination of all three.

so we can put a man on the moon 50 years ago...
and we can make balls that conform to all the current regulations that still go signeificantly farther than 20 years ago.....


but we can't find a way to have a ball that goes 75%?


c'mon
Palmetto has a range full of them

[Colin Macqueen]

Thomas,


A very neat question! I would thoroughly recommend this proposal but you don't even need to change the ball. As Jeff Warne suggests use the forward tees.


I am guessing that to implement this in the easiest way, at one's standard golf club, members just need to start playing off the white tees with the existing ball. At my club at any rate this would allow the architecture to come into play for a much higher percentage of the players. More fun dicing with the a wily architect's dastardly intentions, a quicker round and, if you are as disciplined and accurate as JK, you'll get great satisfaction from skirting around devilish mounds, bunkers, swales and water!


The idea that our courses have to be long and arduous is sad, macho and masochistic! No " long and winding road" for me thankee!


Interestingly, at my club recently, a par3 had been complained about, for yonks, as being too long for the mediocre players. The Committee agreed to shorten it simply by, in all competitions, playing off the white tee. Well ....  every member who found it too long now muses on the fact that their approach shot invariably finds a bunker unless they become more forward thinking (for want of a turn of phrase) and most certainly find the hole more interesting, challenging in better ways and altogether more fun.


Cheers Colin

[Thomas Dai]

Now keeping to the 75% course length and 75% ball scenario, apply this to such things as -


Speed of play
Amount of irrigation water required


Atb

[Matthew Essig]

Based on my personal experience with hickory golf, 85% is a good scale.  ie a 6,000 yard layout instead of 7,000 yards still feels like the same sport once you mentally adjust.  At that distance, you're right back in the sweet spot of golden age distances and you eliminate walk backs on almost all courses (classic and modern). 

And in many ways, the shorter course with the same dynamic has a better overall feel to it, especially if the conditions allow for some roll out.  The fairways become effectively wider from shorter tees and so it makes playing for angles more achievable.  All of this would be pretty silly with 460cc drivers though.

But I agree with Kalen in that it's a small percentage of the overall golfing population that hits it too far for a 6,000 yard course even with the best of technology.  A square path with a persimmon outdrives an over the top hack with an M2 every time. 

Even most mid level amateur tournaments- like state am qualifiers where the average handicap is only a few over scratch, are played on courses around 6,700 yards and very few break par.  As a specific example, take Kankakee Elks (a Langford course that is close to it's original shape at 6,596 yards) in a qualifier for last year's IL state am.  In a field of 44 players, the lowest score was -1 and the field average was +7.3.  There were 2 eagles, 90 birdies, 240 bogeys, 61 doubles, and 16 dreaded others.   One of the 2 players who led the field had no birdies on the par 5s.  And while this field isn't a US Am field, it's still players who are at a level that 95% of golfers can only dream of.

I think 85% is more appropriate than 75% as you say. Even 90% would be better than 75%, IMO. But I think a majority would agree that something needs to be done.

[jeffwarne]

I think 85% is more appropriate than 75% as you say. Even 90% would be better than 75%, IMO. But I think a majority would agree that something needs to be done.

Boy are you in trouble when Hilary gets home

[Matthew Essig]

I think 85% is more appropriate than 75% as you say. Even 90% would be better than 75%, IMO. But I think a majority would agree that something needs to be done.

Boy are you in trouble when Hilary gets home

Are you saying let the minority win again?

10% is the difference in modern and old equipment. Doesn't sound like a lot, but statistically, it is. A 10% in cars on a highway can be the difference between 50 mph and 15 mph. A 7000 yard course would play like 7777 yards, which is about how far Torrey Pines can play now. Whether it is the water issue, pace of play, greens fees, whatever, there is usually at least one that a golfer latches on to and can point at to be in the majority I mentioned.


A 200 yard drive doesn't look that much different from a 222 yard drive. I don't see the argument there with a 10% decrease.

Now, the topic of how do you actually make a golf ball that decreases appropriately for everyone is easily the most complicated part of this. That or trying to close Pandora's box on the equipment companies.

[John Kavanaugh]

Unless you make courses 10% narrower it isn't going to make a difference. Me and every other decent golfer will just swing 10% harder. Narrow the courses...Please!!!!

[jeffwarne]

No Matthew-It was a reference to another poster who has strong disagreement to our opinions on this.


I'd say 10% is close-given that the players today are generally bigger and more athletic
85% would probably be safer to allow for further athletic/optimization advances on the new ball.


But the original question was 75% and I would go for that myself as "efective" width would increase (much to the chagrin of JK)and the walk could be shorter-and walkbacks eliminated

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


I don't recall a time where I have seen the typical pro swing more on balance with such refined tempo. Surely even you must enjoy seeing a golfer work a ball rather than the ball work them. I'm not interested in going back even if it saves a few steps of the same.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Sure, but a question:


Is it accepted engineering that hitting the ball with a 5% faster swing results in 5% more distance ?  Because if not, the 75% ball isn't going to be 75% for everyone ... it could be 80% for some guys and 70% for others, and it would be important to know which way the curve is bent.

The fundamental equation you're dealing with is Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * Mass * Velocity^2.


[size=78%]If you hold the mass of the clubhead constant and vary the swing speed, the kinetic energy will vary with the square of the speed. Said differently, using a baseline of 100% of the maximum swing speed, a person who generates 90% of that speed, will only impart 81% as much energy to the ball, an 80% swinger imparts 64% as much energy. etc.[/size]


So, I think the way to approach the problem is to consider where each individual lies with respect to the maximum swing speed, and see what the changes are with their changes relative to this theoretical maximum swing speed.


The effects of changes in the ball are a much different problem that I don't really have a good handle on how to approach.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Absolutely as it would make one of my favourite scottish 9 holers Corrie GC with only one set of tees built in the 1890's more challenging. In the 60's as a teenager I couldn't reach the Par 4's, the last time I played I could drive 3 of them.

[jeffwarne]

Absolutely as it would make one of my favourite scottish 9 holers Corrie GC with only one set of tees built in the 1890's more challenging. In the 60's as a teenager I couldn't reach the Par 4's, the last time I played I could drive 3 of them.

So many courses like this would be improved and enjoyed by more.
Nothing lke a quick 1 1/2 hour nine (in a group) where you use varied clubs

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Exactly Jeff, maybe these courses obsoleted by the long ball should bifurcate themselves and adopt a 75% ball and let the championship courses carry on their annual lengthening of the course with the existing creeping ball.

[jeffwarne]

Exactly Jeff, maybe these courses obsoleted by the long ball should bifurcate themselves and adopt a 75% ball and let the championship courses carry on their annual lengthening of the course with the existing creeping ball.

agreed
I started a thread on different % balls and it went over like a lead balloon.
what better way to enjoy a course with you 80 year old father or child than to play the same tees and bifurcated balls.
Way cheaper tha 7 sets of tees.
Nicklaus tried it with Cayman ball years ago but that was a much shorter ball and less courses were being shrunk(or bastardized) then.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()