[John Kirk]

The USGA just released its 2017 data.  Jump in driver distance for professionals in 2017 may explain why this topic has generated some renewed interest.

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2018/2017-distance-report-final.pdf

Based on the report, I'm not sure the criticism of driving distance is warranted.

In 1980, the average drive on measured holes is about 255 yards.
In 2017, the average drive on measured holes is about 293 yards.

In 37 years, the average drive has increased by about 14.9%.

Over that time, the number of competitors has increased dramatically.  The prize money now attracts and motivates athletes to maximize their abilities.  Nutrition has improved.  Physical conditioning has improved.  Technique has improved.  More players compete for coveted spots on the golf tour.  I don't think a compelling case for an out of control golf ball can be made, with only a 15% increase in power.  I'd guess the average baseball hitter is at least 15% more powerful than the average 1980 hitter.

Now let me make a counterargument.  Twenty years ago, I could hit a 7-iron about 155-160 yards with a good strike.  The last couple years, I've lost a little distance, mostly due to technique.  But 3-5 years ago, when I was in sync, I could hit a 7-iron about 155-165 yards.  My driving distance stayed about the same for 15 or so years, even though a man loses 1-2% of his strength per year after age 30 or so.  My swing speed with driver probably topped out around 103-105 mph at age 35, and is now probably about 95-97 at best.

I don't see 15% over 37 years as compelling evidence.  If people can make a million dollars for winning a golf tournament, and 50 million in endorsements for winning the Masters, they're going to figure out a way to hit the ball straight and far.

[jeffwarne]

The USGA just released its 2017 data.  Jump in driver distance for professionals in 2017 may explain why this topic has generated some renewed interest.

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2018/2017-distance-report-final.pdf

Based on the report, I'm not sure the criticism of driving distance is warranted.

In 1980, the average drive on measured holes is about 255 yards.
In 2017, the average drive on measured holes is about 293 yards.

In 37 years, the average drive has increased by about 14.9%.

Over that time, the number of competitors has increased dramatically.  The prize money now attracts and motivates athletes to maximize their abilities.  Nutrition has improved.  Physical conditioning has improved.  Technique has improved.  More players compete for coveted spots on the golf tour.  I don't think a compelling case for an out of control golf ball can be made, with only a 15% increase in power.  I'd guess the average baseball hitter is at least 15% more powerful than the average 1980 hitter.

Now let me make a counterargument.  Twenty years ago, I could hit a 7-iron about 155-160 yards with a good strike.  The last couple years, I've lost a little distance, mostly due to technique.  But 3-5 years ago, when I was in sync, I could hit a 7-iron about 155-165 yards.  My driving distance stayed about the same for 15 or so years, even though a man loses 1-2% of his strength per year after age 30 or so.  My swing speed with driver probably topped out around 103-105 mph at age 35, and is now probably about 95-97 at best.

I don't see 15% over 37 years as compelling evidence.  If people can make a million dollars for winning a golf tournament, and 50 million in endorsements for winning the Masters, they're going to figure out a way to hit the ball straight and far.

"I guess the average 2017 baseball hitter is 15% more powerful than the average 1980 hitter"

    based on what?


John,
Everything you type is somewhat true about humans and technique improving..some




.
Which explains perfectly why noted gym rat Freddie Couples averaged 268 yards at age 22...and 296 yards at age 57.....


Or alternatively,
Using your formula of 1-2%(call it 1.5%) loss of strength  from age 30-57,
he should have lost 40% of his power from age 30 to age 57.  1.5% x 27 years =40%


so he evidently must have been hitting it 493 yards at age 30 to be able lose 40% and wind up at 296 after 27 years of muscle loss.


What's most remarkable to me is how he went from 268 at age 22 to 493 by age 30-that is impressive couch work






And if 15% isn't compelling, what % is?  30-50-100%
When should the ball be rolled back?


Wally Uihlein is an absolute genius, and knows how to play the public and the male ego via justification.

and the USGA has been "studying it" all these years-somebody just explained to them that 37 years times one yard IS "statistically significant" after saying for years that one yard isn't. One yard plus or minus isn't ----one yard plus- EVERY YEAR- is.

[John Kirk]

Hi Jeff,

I'll play for a while.  Let me add a couple things before resuming tomorrow.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940510/table/t1-346-350/

This table compares a few studies on aging and thigh muscle strength and mass.  1.5% loss of strength per year seems a decent number.

The mathematics of losing 1.5% per year for 27 years is the same as saying that a person retains 98.5% of his strength for each year of life.

(.985) to the 27th power is equal to .664, or about two-thirds of maximum strength.  Whether it's 33% or 40%, that sounds like a reasonable number to me.  I still lift weights gently, and I use something like 50-65% of the weight I used to employ.  That's being quite active throughout life.  It's easy to injure myself if I lift too much.

What's your driver swing speed?  Mine has dropped from about 105 to about 95 (90%) in 25 years, so I'd argue that a golfer maintains swing speed better than they maintain overall strength.

Regarding the Fred Couples example, I fell like you're cherry picking the data a bit, choosing the lowest driving distance of his career.  You could have chosen age 27, when he averaged about 277, and the difference becomes less dramatic.  However, you make a compelling case.

Let's choose another senior golfer.  First one I thought of was Tom Lehman.  Lehman is averaging 281 yards per drive this year.  In 1992, Lehman averaged 272, so a smaller difference for Lehman.  Couples is kind of a freak, with an unusual swing and extraordinary flexibility.

The hard part is how to judge all the other factors.  Improvements in the driver, improvements in matching ball characteristics to modern drivers, and agronomic improvements resulting in greater roll.  Also, how much does a perfect match of shaft and clubhead make a difference?

All of a sudden, last year I fell 15-20 yards behind my friends.  Most of them had new drivers, and I have this suspicion that the ball and drivers were both altered so that you needed a new driver to reap the maximum benefit from the new version of the ball.  It's probably just bad technique and paranoia.
     

[Jeff Schley]

Regarding the Fred Couples example, I fell like you're cherry picking the data a bit, choosing the lowest driving distance of his career.  You could have chosen age 27, when he averaged about 277, and the difference becomes less dramatic.  However, you make a compelling case.

Let's choose another senior golfer.  First one I thought of was Tom Lehman.  Lehman is averaging 281 yards per drive this year.  In 1992, Lehman averaged 272, so a smaller difference for Lehman.  Couples is kind of a freak, with an unusual swing and extraordinary flexibility.

 

First we are talking about PGA Tour stats from the best players in the world, so I would much rather use the PGA Tour stats pointed out above than any single case examples for we have outliers in statistics (Fred Couples).  We don't have historical swing speed data as that is a fairly new stat, but that would be the stat to isolate player swing performance (keeping launch, spin, etc. the same).  We don't have that, thus we have distance and with so many factors in play we can surmise I believe that the ProV1 ball and club tech are IMO 75% of the equation or more.

[Bryan Izatt]

John,


Thanks for the strength link.  It's a bit depressing that I'm now in the 3% loss a year age group. Sadly, I can feel it.  As more anecdotal evidence, my swing speed 15 years ago was between 100 and 105 mph.  Now it is somewhere around 95 mph - so a loss of maybe 10%.  The distance loss is noticeable to me and is around 20 yards with a driver. 


I've never seen any data about how much distance on average we would lose as we age.  It certainly wouldn't have been 40%, absent any technology, optimization, technique improvements, I don't think. If I drove the ball 230 yards 50 years ago, it's hard to imagine that I would only hit it 140 yards now.  In fact I have a persimmon driver with a steel shaft that I can still hit about 200 yards, if I hit it on the screws.  Even with a very old balata ball.


On the other hand, with modern technology and optimization I've probably only lost 10 yards from my prime, 50 years ago, so there is no doubt in my mind that technology, optimization and agronomy has helped me stay not too far from where I was a long time ago distance-wise.  Having said that, I don't personally feel any need to roll back the ball.  My home courses over the last 20 years were modern courses all over 7200 yards (where virtually nobody plays).  None of them needed to be lengthened.  I've been stuck playing around 6000 to 6400 yards my whole life, and I'd like to stay there as long as possible.


I can't imagine any scenario where the PGA Tour would unilaterally create a shorter competition ball, therefore I think that bifurcation is a non-starter.


I have never played any of the classic private American courses and probably never will in my life time, so I'm not too distressed if the memberships of those courses want to mess with their courses to remain "relevant" to a small cadre of elite golfers. 


There are no sports that are played the same way today as they were 50 years ago.  At home we have a channel dedicated to the Maple Leafs hockey team that regularly shows vintage hockey game from as far back as the '60's.  Watching them vs today's game is ridiculous.  The players are significantly bigger, faster and more skilled now.  The arenas are the same size though.


I was kind of curious about what precipitated Slumbers line in the sand comments.  Was it the uptick in 2017 driving distance, which by the way looks like it will continue into 2018? Or the number of 300+ yard drivers on the tour (69 so far)? Or, something else?


Looking at the report, I was struck by the following table.





The uptick from '16 to '17 can be accounted for by a 1 mph increase in club speed and resulting 1 mph increase in ball speed with a 1* higher launch angle and continuing low spin rate. 


So, why did the average club and ball speed go up.  The following graph shows 10 long distance drivers on the PGA Tour over the last 5 years (including 2018)  As you can see they are all over the place from year to year.  So, it wasn't the prime age group who have been around for at least 5 years that caused the uptick.  If you look at the current list of 69 300+ yard hitters there are a bunch of names I'm not familiar with - guys who are new to the tour in the last year, almost all young, almost all tall and almost all flexible and strong. Guys like: Trey Mullinax, Kevin Tway, Keith Mitchell. Tom Lovelady, Hao Tong Li, Grayson Murray, Matt Jones, Sam Burns, Cody Gribble, Maverick McNealy, Rick Lamb, Aaron Wise, Adam Schenk, Corey Connors, Brandon Harkins, Matt Atkins, Talor Gooch, Stephan Jaeger, and Bronson Burgoon.  Success in getting on tour is going to the long hitters.  There are just more of them, not that the technology is somehow increasing the distance on tour.

[Jeff Schley]

 Guys like: Trey Mullinax, Kevin Tway, Keith Mitchell. Tom Lovelady, Hao Tong Li, Grayson Murray, Matt Jones, Sam Burns, Cody Gribble, Maverick McNealy, Rick Lamb, Aaron Wise, Adam Schenk, Corey Connors, Brandon Harkins, Matt Atkins, Talor Gooch, Stephan Jaeger, and Bronson Burgoon.  Success in getting on tour is going to the long hitters.  There are just more of them, not that the technology is somehow increasing the distance on tour.

Is it just me or did you get a chuckle to hear some of these names?  Almost like actor names: Tom Lovelady, Maverick McNealy, Talor Gooch, Bronson Burgoon.  A good start to shoot another Dirty Dozen.

[Mike_Clayton]

Hadn't occurred to me that the small ball was also rock hard so chipping/pitching around those greens would have been brutal.
That said, you likely lost those 25 yards with the big ball but regained every bit of that lost advantage around the greens, no?


Jim,


Interesting question. I'm not sure the scores changed too much. Some of the older guys hated the change because they had played their whole professional life with a small ball. The vast majority just accepted it and moved on.
It wasn't losing the yardage that was the problem - it was driving into the wind and playing crosswinds especially with the Pro-Traj.
For a time Dunlop made the DDH and it was better ball in the wind.
Of course the Titleist ball was made for US conditions - generally less wind and more about flying the ball through the air.
There was a good reason the ball was the size it was in Britain and Australia. I think the history was America adopted a bigger ball because of lusher fairways - the smaller ball sat down a little more in the longer - than links course - grass.

[jeffwarne]

Hi Jeff,

I'll play for a while.  Let me add a couple things before resuming tomorrow.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3940510/table/t1-346-350/

This table compares a few studies on aging and thigh muscle strength and mass.  1.5% loss of strength per year seems a decent number.

The mathematics of losing 1.5% per year for 27 years is the same as saying that a person retains 98.5% of his strength for each year of life.

(.985) to the 27th power is equal to .664, or about two-thirds of maximum strength.  Whether it's 33% or 40%, that sounds like a reasonable number to me.  I still lift weights gently, and I use something like 50-65% of the weight I used to employ.  That's being quite active throughout life.  It's easy to injure myself if I lift too much.

What's your driver swing speed?  Mine has dropped from about 105 to about 95 (90%) in 25 years, so I'd argue that a golfer maintains swing speed better than they maintain overall strength.

Regarding the Fred Couples example, I fell like you're cherry picking the data a bit, choosing the lowest driving distance of his career.  You could have chosen age 27, when he averaged about 277, and the difference becomes less dramatic.  However, you make a compelling case.

Let's choose another senior golfer.  First one I thought of was Tom Lehman.  Lehman is averaging 281 yards per drive this year.  In 1992, Lehman averaged 272, so a smaller difference for Lehman.  Couples is kind of a freak, with an unusual swing and extraordinary flexibility.

The hard part is how to judge all the other factors.  Improvements in the driver, improvements in matching ball characteristics to modern drivers, and agronomic improvements resulting in greater roll.  Also, how much does a perfect match of shaft and clubhead make a difference?

All of a sudden, last year I fell 15-20 yards behind my friends.  Most of them had new drivers, and I have this suspicion that the ball and drivers were both altered so that you needed a new driver to reap the maximum benefit from the new version of the ball.  It's probably just bad technique and paranoia.
   

John,
All good information.
I was just having a bit of fun.


I do trot Couples out though as it is well documemnted he is not a gym rat.
I often hear that athleticism and gymwork is the reason for increased distance.
As a you say he's a freak of nature, but freaks of nature don't ADD 20-30 yards AS they age 30-35 years unless they are getting technological and optimization help-especially a guy with a well documented back injury.


I personally hit the ball farther at 50(I'm now 55) than I ever did at 20.and to age 50t had not worked out since High School sports.
I attribute that distance gain despite 30 years of aging to equipment. I swung the old 43 inch wood driver at 108 mph game speed-(max of 111) at age 29 (the first year I was measured)
I was swinging the modern equipment at age 50 at 104-105 game speed-(max of 107-108)
But i hit the ball substantially farther with a a modern driver at 107 than I did with a wooden driver at 111 (especially in the air)
Of course that's with two different machines (Sport tech computer in 1992 and Trackman in 2013)


Lately though there's been a dropoff-despite the fact that I began working out with a TPI trainer 3 days a week in 2014 at age 51.
Maybe Couples was right...


Now with being out from a back and hip injury for 2 1/2 months I am struggling in the mid-high 90's but I'm pretty sure I'll be back above 100 after a couple months of rehab and practice


At the end of the day though, i don't think it matters WHY people are hitting the ball further.
I just don't think the scale of classic courses fits the modern player-whether he's a 25 year old long 8 handicap or an elite professional, and this is reflected by the modern spread out big scale crap we get )in most cases) when new courses are built and old ones are renovated.


As always most of my evidence is anecdotal -but it's pretty consistent in one direction.

[Peter Pallotta]

sorry, wrong place

[Stephen Davis]

Here's what's left out of the distance debate for the most part. Most of us don't hit it hard enough , swing fast enough to realize the max increases with the new equipment /balls. So doesn't it stand to reason that if we make it so the ball doesn't react like a super ball (remember them ) at say 110 MPH and follows a curve that is flat everybody wins .


You know they can do this ! 😎😡

DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!


This is the post of the thread. This is exactly right. The anti-rollback people say that they don't want the men who drive the ball 200 yards and the women who drive the ball 140 to lose 20 yards, this is either total ignorance to science or deliberately misleading. The 200/140 crowd are not hitting the ball hard enough to take advantage of any of the technology in the balls that would allow them to hit the ball further. They can play with limited flight range balls and they would not see a measurable difference (I have seen this in action), heck they could probably play any ball and be within a yard or two of each other. So people need to stop with the fear mongering and pretending to be concerned with the effect this is going to have on grandpa or grandma and say what they really mean.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's what's left out of the distance debate for the most part. Most of us don't hit it hard enough , swing fast enough to realize the max increases with the new equipment /balls. So doesn't it stand to reason that if we make it so the ball doesn't react like a super ball (remember them ) at say 110 MPH and follows a curve that is flat everybody wins .


You know they can do this ! 😎😡

DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!


This is the post of the thread. This is exactly right. The anti-rollback people say that they don't want the men who drive the ball 200 yards and the women who drive the ball 140 to lose 20 yards, this is either total ignorance to science or deliberately misleading. The 200/140 crowd are not hitting the ball hard enough to take advantage of any of the technology in the balls that would allow them to hit the ball further. They can play with limited flight range balls and they would not see a measurable difference (I have seen this in action), heck they could probably play any ball and be within a yard or two of each other. So people need to stop with the fear mongering and pretending to be concerned with the effect this is going to have on grandpa or grandma and say what they really mean.

Archie, Stephen,


This myth that faster swingers enjoyed some disproportionate gain in distance was scientifically debunked by the USGA back in 2011.


http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html[/size]


The relationship between swing speed and distance is linear with a small tail off above 110 mph.  For each mph you add or lose you gain or lose about 3 yards.  The 3 yard slope would most likely apply to any new rolled back ball - the science of ball flight is not going to change because the ball is less lively.  Either the ball would be rolled back by making it bigger to increase drag or made lighter to do the same.  There is no way that that would mean that 80 mph swingers would notice no change.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Here's what's left out of the distance debate for the most part. Most of us don't hit it hard enough , swing fast enough to realize the max increases with the new equipment /balls. So doesn't it stand to reason that if we make it so the ball doesn't react like a super ball (remember them ) at say 110 MPH and follows a curve that is flat everybody wins .


You know they can do this ! 😎😡

DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!


This is the post of the thread. This is exactly right. The anti-rollback people say that they don't want the men who drive the ball 200 yards and the women who drive the ball 140 to lose 20 yards, this is either total ignorance to science or deliberately misleading. The 200/140 crowd are not hitting the ball hard enough to take advantage of any of the technology in the balls that would allow them to hit the ball further. They can play with limited flight range balls and they would not see a measurable difference (I have seen this in action), heck they could probably play any ball and be within a yard or two of each other. So people need to stop with the fear mongering and pretending to be concerned with the effect this is going to have on grandpa or grandma and say what they really mean.

Archie, Stephen,


This myth that faster swingers enjoyed some disproportionate gain in distance was scientifically debunked by the USGA back in 2011.


http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html


The relationship between swing speed and distance is linear with a small tail off above 110 mph.  For each mph you add or lose you gain or lose about 3 yards.  The 3 yard slope would most likely apply to any new rolled back ball - the science of ball flight is not going to change because the ball is less lively.  Either the ball would be rolled back by making it bigger to increase drag or made lighter to do the same.  There is no way that that would mean that 80 mph swingers would notice no change.

This is a very thinly sourced article that leaves out entirely the many parts of the equation on the clubhead side of the energy and momentum transfer that happens at impact.

[JESII]

Jonathan,


How would those club head specifications benefit the faster swinger more?

[Jason Topp]

For me the elephant in the room is the fact the club and ball manufacturers make money by selling premium products, and they make the most money by charging high prices for clubs that they can sell as adding distance off the tee.  Anything that curbs that ability to innovate will cut drastically into their margins at a time when participation in the game is shrinking.
[/size]
[/size]The cost of maintaining this model is that it makes the game more expensive, require more land and take more time. 
[/size]
[/size]PXG is an interesting disrupter of the classic model that the big manufacturers have taken in the past.  As far as I can tell, they have focused on making their product a premium product based on factors other than technological innovation.   The looks, the customer service and creating an image of luxury seem to be the way they have been able to charge high prices. 


[/size]Manufacturer profits are a significant source of income for club and touring professionals and media companies.  All of those participants have a strong incentive to continue to allow innovation.Any change to the status quo would be extremely difficult to accomplish and require some stones on the part of the governing body.  Such a move would need to be weighed against the risk that the public would be willing to buy nonconforming equipment rather than accept the changes.  I am not sure whether or not that risk is a huge one.  The ERC failed.

[Stephen Davis]

Here's what's left out of the distance debate for the most part. Most of us don't hit it hard enough , swing fast enough to realize the max increases with the new equipment /balls. So doesn't it stand to reason that if we make it so the ball doesn't react like a super ball (remember them ) at say 110 MPH and follows a curve that is flat everybody wins .


You know they can do this ! 😎😡

DING!!! DING!!! DING!!!


This is the post of the thread. This is exactly right. The anti-rollback people say that they don't want the men who drive the ball 200 yards and the women who drive the ball 140 to lose 20 yards, this is either total ignorance to science or deliberately misleading. The 200/140 crowd are not hitting the ball hard enough to take advantage of any of the technology in the balls that would allow them to hit the ball further. They can play with limited flight range balls and they would not see a measurable difference (I have seen this in action), heck they could probably play any ball and be within a yard or two of each other. So people need to stop with the fear mongering and pretending to be concerned with the effect this is going to have on grandpa or grandma and say what they really mean.

Archie, Stephen,


This myth that faster swingers enjoyed some disproportionate gain in distance was scientifically debunked by the USGA back in 2011.


http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html


The relationship between swing speed and distance is linear with a small tail off above 110 mph.  For each mph you add or lose you gain or lose about 3 yards.  The 3 yard slope would most likely apply to any new rolled back ball - the science of ball flight is not going to change because the ball is less lively.  Either the ball would be rolled back by making it bigger to increase drag or made lighter to do the same.  There is no way that that would mean that 80 mph swingers would notice no change.

They can and have developed balls that affect flight at higher speeds. It was done by changing dimple patterns. It was tested by the R&A quite a bit and found that there was negligible distance loss with slower swing speeds as opposed to faster swing speeds.

[Garland Bayley]

The distance problem is a real one, but we have plenty of evidence that the powers that be have zero incentive to change it--they believe that fans want to see the bombers bomb.  What seems to be more reasonable to ask is to return to the days where the ball actually hooked or sliced if not hit properly.  Not only does that cause pause for the bombers, but may be it will return real shot making.  Who did not have fun watching Bubba at Riveria?


Ira

This is what Jack pointed out. Who wants to turn the game over to a bunch of gorillas that beat you by hitting a spinless ball miles farther than you. Why reward the few gorillas out there by continuing down the path we are on? Bring back a ball that rewards skill, not muscle.

[JESII]

How bout we also talk about bringing back courses that require skill not muscle?

[Ira Fishman]

How bout we also talk about bringing back courses that require skill not muscle?

Jim, one of the premises of my post for which I am grateful that Garland resurfaced is precisely that equipment that does not produce a straight shot will bring courses that reward shot makers back onto the radar. 


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

They can and have developed balls that affect flight at higher speeds. It was done by changing dimple patterns. It was tested by the R&A quite a bit and found that there was negligible distance loss with slower swing speeds as opposed to faster swing speeds.

I recall some experiments a few years ago with dimple depth. My recollection is, in simple terms, that the deeper the dimples the higher the ball flies although I
imagine there are lots of other factors/variables that need consideration.
So maybe deeper dimples would lessen the gap between the longest and others as the best/longest players don’t have a problem getting the ball into the air, quite the opposite, whereas lessor players usually need help getting decent flight and if the player is particularly poor, well a top or a fat shot is still going to be fat or a top whatever the ball type!
Sorry I can’t refer to any links, this is just my recollections from something published quite a while back.
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

A request:


If you want to roll back the golf ball, could you please point to a specific moment in golf history (heck, I'd take a 3- to 5-year range) when the ball traveled the ideal distance, and explain why you chose that moment?



It would be helpful to see some concrete responses to this question because it would require rollback supporters to be accountable to their requests, rather than merely upset without any actual solution.

Improve your reading comprehension and stop providing meaningless simplifications, then you might begin to get somewhere.

[Garland Bayley]

Chicken Little said the sky was falling. I'm for the status quo. I'm more of the Emperor with no clothes. Now enjoy lunch with that image in your mind.

Duly corrected.  (And disgusted.)


I just don't see why the distances players hit it in the 1950's or 1970's wouldn't work today, and the whole game would fall apart.

Funny thing about that. They won by using the fewest strokes back then too.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,


I'm not sure this debate needs to continue but I'm always interested in it. Over a beer would be ideal, but GCA will have to do for now I suppose...that said, could you please stop with the rhetoric that the ball is not regulated? It kills any incentive to engage with you because you're repeating something you know to be untrue.


Does anyone think the ProV1 has improved by even 1% since it's introduction in the fall of 2000 to today? That is, if hit with the same speed and same club head at the same angle of attack, does the ProV1 of 2018 go any further than the same of 2000? My guess is they've found a yard or two but would not believe they've found more than 5.

The ball is not regulated on the characteristics that were the cause of our current problem. The ball was engineered to go longer under the existing regulations. No regulation was put in place to counteract that engineering feat.

[JESII]

Thanks Garland. Yes, it’s funny that way...it’s generally preferred to not completely stifle innovation...

[Garland Bayley]

How bout we also talk about bringing back courses that require skill not muscle?

There you go again, railing against the current fad of wide fairways.   


 

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Garland. Yes, it’s funny that way...it’s generally preferred to not completely stifle innovation...

You mean stifle greed?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()