[A.G._Crockett]

To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball.  That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.

A.G.

For someone who said they didn’t want to argue, you sure are lobbing a lot of shots.

Please point out, specifically, where I directly referenced Brodie’s study on driving distance in connection with the golf ball.

 You keep making inferences that are clearly riling you up, that simply are not accurate. I can appreciate that you worship at the church of Broadie and want to support his work. But when you read something that you may not agree with or understand, rather than being rude and insulting, have you considered asking clarifying questions? This entire exchange could have potentially been fruitful if you had not started on the defensive.

I didn’t reference Mark Broadie; you did.  And you did it in support of a proposed local rule ABOUT THE GOLF BALL.  The Broadie study you cited in support of that position is about all aspects of driving distance EXCEPT the golf ball, possibly because it’s the one thing that has NOT changed about the top 40 players since 2006.


I didn’t misunderstand Broadie’s work, nor am I misrepresenting it.  If that constitutes worshipping at “the church of Broadie”, then guilty as charged, and I DO truly admire his work.  Enough so that I think I try to reference his work in an accurate and useful manner. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

I didn’t reference Mark Broadie; you did.  And you did it in support of a proposed local rule ABOUT THE GOLF BALL.  The Broadie study you cited in support of that position is about all aspects of driving distance EXCEPT the golf ball, possibly because it’s the one thing that has NOT changed about the top 40 players since 2006.

I introduced this study to the discussion because it is topical. I was hoping it would spur substantive conversation, but clearly I was wrong. The only two people who have made direct references between Broadie and the golf ball in this discussion have been you and Erik. Go back and re-read the posts and then you might understand the poor inferences you're making.

For what it's worth, I'll leave this quote for you, from the Introduction section of Broadie's study. Hopefully it help to illuminate Broadie's intentions as it relates to the bolded portion of your comment above:

"The most comprehensive study of distance in golf is R&A and USGA (2020b). This 102-page
report by the Royal and Ancient (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA) reflects
the work of 56 separate reports. Extensive data is provided on driving distance, course length, water
usage, stakeholder opinion research and more. The conclusions from this work are summarized in
R&A and USGA (2020a). Though extensive, there are still many open questions about the impact
of driving distance and other skills on performance in golf. This paper examines the contributions
of driving distance and other skills (approach shots, short game shots and putting) to success on
the PGA Tour."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

rather than being rude and insulting

Right out of the "I disagree but I can't just say that and why" playbook: just attack the person with opinions about how you took their plain text. Counterpoint: nothing AG said was "rude and insulting."

The only two people who have made direct references between Broadie and the golf ball in this discussion have been you and Erik.

That's inaccurate. This whole discussion is about the MLR ball… and you are the one who brought up the Broadie study.

[Garland Bayley]

My apologies, let me provide the quote so you can better clarify you position.

I already did. And have been saying this for like 20 years. You can probably go find a post on Geoff Shackelford's site where I've been saying the longer versions of this… which I've since reduced to the shorthand version.

The ball has always (legally) gone a long way. Prior to 1999 or so, pros played balata or Professionals (etc.) because they wanted the spin. The Pro V1 (and its ilk) was basically just the companies figuring out how to make a Pinnacle spin the way the pros wanted.

The ball has always (legally) gone pretty far.

So little comprehension, so much blather.

[John Bouffard]

I have a hunch that the "stated goals" of the rollback do not reflect their most ardent concerns about distance. IMO, this is indeed about "preserving" the relevance of a handful of historic courses, and possibly also a reflection of the opinions of certain people on how the modern game looks (long drives, wedges, etc.) compared to the game they played in their heyday. Not to say there aren't other reasons they sincerely embrace as well...and I'm not saying the other reasons (water, land, etc.) aren't valid. But the most important things to them are appearance and history, IMO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()