Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on February 06, 2006, 07:28:51 PM
-
Is the PGA Tour primarily responsible for the ruination of classic architecture ?
Is there any abatement in sight ?
Do architects and developers contribute to the downward spriral by building 7,400, 7,600 and 7,800 yard golf courses ?
Why do courses continually offer their architecture up to the sacrificial knife ?
-
Patrick,
I for one, absolutely think so. I don't blame the architects at all though. Can you imagine building Trump a par 70 6800 yard golf course with tricky greens. He would laugh at you, I would guess. I truly see no solution, it is out of control. Those idiots on CBS, you would have thought Donald Ross was walking down the fairways at Scottsdale. They don't help anything, "I have not enjoyed watching golf this much in a long time" Lanny Wadkins. For what it is worth, I enjoyed watching Kevin Tway play Longmeadow properly. 27 out of 35 weeks the pro tour is boring.
-
Is the PGA Tour primarily responsible for the ruination of classic architecture ?
Why do courses continually offer their architecture up to the sacrificial knife ?
The PGA could reign in the yardages by changing ball specs, the same way Major League Baseball mandates the use of wooden bats. The USGA needs to follow suit or top courses will still not be able to host the top local and amateur tourneys or just accept the lower scores and irons off most of the tees. It is a problem that could be fixed over night and the PGA and USGA should never have let it get this far. 240 yard four irons should not be the norm or even possible.
-
It's a losing battle. I think I threw in the towel this weekend when CBS annointed J.B. Holmes the new messiah (Tiger was in Dubai, after all, and Daly was probably on his way to detox...again.)
Nothing gets the network announcers going like distance. that filters down to even the more knowledgable sportswriters. I heard one guy on a local radio show this week talking about possible equipment changes to limit the distance the ball carries, and he said, "Why would you want to limit the most exciting part of the game?"
I don't know how to argue with that anymore. J.B. Holmes is what the people want. He appears to be a terrific player, but if he were doing it with his putter and his four-iron, I don't know how much excitement he'd be generating.
It's not the game I want to see, but it is the game we've got. The ruination of the game as we used to know it -- at least as it is played on TV -- is complete. C'est la vie.
-
1. Yes, I think so, since that is where the problems with distance originate and reside.
2. Yes, I think so, since there are limits to how fast a human being can swing a golf club.
3. Yes, without a doubt, since golf exists in a competitive market and the ethic seems to be that the posted yardage determines the desirability to the consumers.
4. This is the one I am really curious and perplexed about. I would assume that the answers are, in no particular order:
a. marketing
b. a misunderstanding of the reality that adding length to the course only makes it MORE important to hit the ball a long way, not less.
c. money, if they wish to host a professional event.
I do think that many older courses have been forced to upgrade in terms of bunkers, drainage, grasses, greens, etc., due to the huge number of new courses around them as a commercial reality, and in the process have added length. But it is perplexing...
-
Is the PGA Tour responsible for the ruination of classic architecture?
No. Unless in some subliminal way watching golf on TV makes greens committees do stupid things.
Do architects and developers contribute to the dowward spiral?
What downward spiral? If you mean they are spending more, and getting less interesting golf courses, maybe there is a downward spiral. One good thing about a 7500 yard course is there's also a good 6800 yard course and a good 6000 yard course inside ...multible tees give you 3 or 4 good courses for the price of one......I'm not sure you can say that about a "classic course" that tops out at 6500 yds.
Why do courses offer up for sacrifice?
Ego, money, stupidity....
-
For one, I don't think the PGA Tour is responsible for the ruiantion of classic architecture. I do feel it enables it though - much like the bar down the street didn't cause someone's alcoholism, but it enables it.
Any number of non-professional golf related contributing factors helped. The massive tree plantings of the 50s and 60s, coupled with the development of single row irrigation which brought faiways in and saw bunkers and angles of play started it.
I think this method became mimicked moreso than anything... TV and the PGA Tour just put some of the egregious examples in plain sight for everybody.
-
Patrick,
I think a lot of it is aestetics, particularly in golf and residential communities. People see beautiful landscaping by Fazio and many others and don't really understand design -- it's just a social gathering.
I think the private golf only clubs are the ones that retain the classical stlye design
-
If you are talking about classics that are tour stops then of course the answer is yes. If it’s a TPC yes and if the course wants to market itself as a "championship course" then yes.
Also, the more I think about it the casual player wants to play where the pros play, or in a similar environment, even if they don't play the same tees. In that case the architecture is market driven.
I wish TV commentators would highlight how silly it has gotten when the majority of players can blast over a previously strategic hazard. Maybe they could highlight why it was there and how it adds interest. I think if more golfers learned to look for architecture in their playing then some of the market forces would change.
-
The TPC courses which are used for the Tour are not much longer than the average course they play -- certainly Scottsdale and Sawgrass are not long. And I'm told the Commissioner has told the tour staff NOT to lengthen the holes on any of the TPC courses, because the contingent of shorter and straighter hitters on the Tour are already convinced that the world is conspiring against them, and they are a major voting bloc.
It's the players on the Tour hitting it so far which gets people focused on length ... especially when the network announcers are babbling on about it in awe. Of course, a lot of those ads in between the shots are paid for by equipment companies, so that may have something to do with the commentary.
Craig Sweet: name a good 7500 yard course which is also an interesting 6500 yard course. Just one, please. I don't believe the two are really compatible.
-
Sadly, I think the point really boils down to what you view golf to be. If golf is a test of specific skills at specific times of a round, then penal dependent designs and optionless golf are bound to follow. If golf is a test of skill coupled with strategic decision making, the game will recover and come back. Flanking bunkers, long rough, narrow fairways and length for its own sake really are the easy way out. It takes thought and craftsmanship to create holes comprised of multiple landing areas with multiple and differing benefits that change as pin placements vary. The majority of those who play our course on a daily basis do not want to think. the enjoy the fact that it is obvious they are to hit from point A to point B to point C and if they fail they are punished. Having to think on a day off due to width, angle of attack etc... Is just too much to ask some to undertake on a day off. That's OK though, for they can play down the middle of our strategic masterpieces and never know what they are missing.
Cheers!
JT
-
John K,
Is the Ocean course really "good" from the 7800 yard tees? I hit it pretty far but from what I understand about its repetitive long forced carries I probably wouldn't have much fun back there once, let alone day in and day out. Maybe J.B. Holmes might like it.
If you take a good 7000 yard course and build some new tees to create a 7700 yard course, it doesn't matter to most people whether the 7700 yard course is good or not because they won't play it. If you start moving bunkers around and doing other stuff to make it better from 7700 yards, its quite possible you are making it worse from 7000 yards.
As more courses started getting designed with longer tees in mind, on some of them the shorter tees will suffer from a lack of strategy, or unintended consequences caused by the bigger and badder driving hazards that will be necessary to fight the FLOG. We may see a resurgeance in hazards that resemble the Cardinal or Hell. Nope, in our dreams! I bet we'll just see more "environmentally sensitive areas" marked with red stakes!
-
It's not the pro tour that has rendered many older and less difficult courses obsolete. It's the modern players and the modern techniques they use to maximize their ability. These guys are so damn good now.
What most impressed me about J.B. Holmes was how compact his swing was. 340 yard drives with a 3/4 backswing. Great looking swing.
-
Craig Sweet: name a good 7500 yard course which is also an interesting 6500 yard course. Just one, please. I don't believe the two are really compatible.
Tom
I'm not Craig, but how about the Old Course? Yes, I know it's not yet 7500 from the tips, but it's getting there!
-
I find it completely mind boggling to blame the tour for long courses. Sure, the tour has been directly responsible for building some long courses, but they had nothing to do with the vast majority of modern monstrosities or mucking about with old courses for that matter. As Kyle suggests, this is akin to blaming the barman for somebody having a drink problem. The barman is selling a product, you are either buying it or not. It is no different with golf.
Golf is like any industry, it is consumer driven and recently the consumer has been choosing to play long courses. I don't see this trend really changing in the near future with a ball roll back or not. I do find it interesting that the GCA approved courses of late are mostly public hits as well. These courses seem to be doing alright financially. Is this suggesting that GCA types are underserved or have many of these courses been built in clever areas where they can be marketed to great effect and maximizing their potential?
Ciao
Sean
-
Ruination, I'm not sure about that, but they are responsible for a number of courses being redesigned, Major venues and Major hopefuls. The populariy of professional golf from TV had and has a big impact upon golf architecture and popular tastes. It may have made RTJ career, and he gave us Rees.
-
Tom: Again, maybe you can blame the larger "tour", but not the PGA Tour management itself. They are not the ones lengthening courses or changing classics. They haven't touched Westchester or Harbour Town, and they wouldn't have touched Riviera -- that's the owners trying to attract a major.
It's the major championships and the USGA which are the ones constantly tweaking and messing with classic courses, not the Tour itself.
-
I agree with Tom D. The real villains are the USGA, PGA and (unhappily now) ANGC setups.
Majors are played on important courses. People watch them on TV. They watch them very carefully.
They almost always come away with the wrong lesson. They make the cardinal mistake of confusing (a) tournament set ups for a major with (b) improvements to the course.
Two very different things. Remarkably few people grasp the distinction.
Bob
-
Tom: Again, maybe you can blame the larger "tour", but not the PGA Tour management itself. They are not the ones lengthening courses or changing classics. They haven't touched Westchester or Harbour Town, and they wouldn't have touched Riviera -- that's the owners trying to attract a major.
It's the major championships and the USGA which are the ones constantly tweaking and messing with classic courses, not the Tour itself.
Tom
You can't have it both ways. One the one hand you blame Riviera for changes designed to attract a major. On the other hand you blame the USGA for changing other courses to attract a major.
If members have a choice if they want to attract a major or not then surely it is memberships who are responsible for changes to their course? How could it be any other way?
This whole scenario with the distance problem seems to be one huge jacking of responsibility. There is no point in blaming the tour, the USGA or the PGA. The problem lies with golfers, they are the consumers and they make choices with their pocketbook. When golfers look in the mirror and take the blame for creating the distance issue and decide to do something about it then perhaps things will change.
Ciao
Sean
-
I think saying equipment is the root cause of the change of golf courses is putting the cart before the horse.
The tight, quick green, deep rough set up has been around since long before Pittsburgh Persimmon was on the market. Corridors of play, angles of attack and the ichthus of bunkers and fairways were lost while you all were still playing Wilson Blades, Titleist Tour 100s (with one ball in every few dozen as dead as a koosh ball), and your Izett Persimmons (10 degree driver, 14 degree 3-wood, and 16 degree 4-wood).
Most of the tree plantings on your every day country club are 30-40 years old, not 5.
If anything, I think the proclivity to the narrowing of corridors has lead to the "straight and high" equipment market. Width in play just isn't accepted anymore.
-
What course that would be considered classic courses does the PGA Tour play? This question may have to be examined on a case by case basis. In general I guess there is always the debate about the impact of TV on society in general. For some of us who don’t watch TV much the Tour would have little if any impact. If there is any truth to be found about architecture I think you find it by doing rather than by watching so it is important what clutter is allowed into your thoughts, therefore it is possible that the drivel some point to in these telecasts is making its way into the mainstream of thought that is then carried to clubs around the country.
With regards for your architects and developers question I would think that the concept for the course, or the reason for its existence, is the primary question rather than the distance. The club where I grew up was a social entity and a golf club, it was the hub of many people’s lives and it had that atmosphere which was a good thing. The architecture of the course would be pretty low by any standard however because of many factors which included the reasons for its existence it was the most enjoyable golf I ever experienced. In large part I think this was due to the low-key informal nature of the whole operation around the golf pro shop and snack bar. What I see today is more a proliferation of courses with other purposes be it to sell homes around the course, cater to outings, and to maximize play at all hours during the week and weekends. There is much more of a managed, business like atmosphere, and this is predominantly at the public golf level now, I am not in the private market anymore except for my work. The golf course in the community as the hub of activity has been displaced somewhat by competition. So, I think there are many more factors to consider other than the long courses if you believe as you do that golf is on a downward spiral. For instance, I think there could be a big difference in the way the same course could be perceived under two different circumstances: One, a public course that is their to serve the golfing and social needs of the local community, where the requirement is not to make money, but rather to serve those aforementioned needs to the highest level possible while still breaking even and nothing more, or the same course that is professionally managed and must maximize profits at all costs in order for the management company to meet the needs of their stockholders and owners. Same course, two different concepts of business approaches, and I predict you would come away from the experience with two vastly different impressions.
The demise of architecture at clubs has much to do with the members in charge as it does with the restoration and improvement of the architecture. I have seen incidences where the powers at the club allowed an incompetent architect to carve up what was otherwise a very interesting course, so certainly there is some responsibility there as well. However, more times than not there are members of a club who have no place being in charge, who are grossly incompetent when it comes to making decisions that affect the course. The push for certain playing conditions has pulled the superintendent into this mix as well. I think their ability to deliver unprecedented conditions has more than anything threatened the economic solvency of some operations. Some clubs can not accept that turf and playing conditions must adjust weekly to the weather conditions. The desire to maintain the same conditions throughout the season is a terrible goal of many clubs. The constant oversight by some members has caused the superintendent to become more of a yes man and his inability to deliver the exact conditions from week to week has put him on the defensive. But, the GCSAA and the suppliers have not made his job easy because for years instead of being proactive in discussing in a public forum just where do we want the turf maintenance of American courses to be they were largely silent about reasonable limitations and instead featured the latest breakthroughs in technology that could help the superintendent maintain design features of the most ridiculous nature.
-
I think primary blame should fall on the USGA and R and A. They should have done a better job in managing technological impact on the sport.
I am also very much inclined to agree with KBM that, secondary to the free reign of technology, the memberships in general and the committee leaders in particular are responsible for changes to their own courses. They make the decisions and they pay the bills. If an architect gives them what they want, are you going to blame the architect, USGA, PGA or TV? Theirs may be a derivative response but they have control and ultimate responsibility.
-
Patrick,
The next time you notice that a marvelous 2,000 sf craftsman's bungalow in a toney infill location has been torn down and replaced by a shoe-horned 6,000 sf McMansion, don't blame it on HGTV.
Golf course architecture does not occupy a vacuum. It is subject to the same cultural trends and whims that today values bigger, expensive, glamourous and spectacular. That, and money just has a nasty habit of burning holes in people's pockets, even when it's not their money.
The enemy is us - not the tour.
Mike
-
Bogey....
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. Bigger,expensive, spectacular...manifest destiny!
Tom Doak...
I think the Old Works is a pretty good golf course from several of its tee's...to name one.
-
When golfers look in the mirror and take the blame for creating the distance issue and decide to do something about it then perhaps things will change.
Sean, you don't really believe that'll ever happen, do you? No matter how far JB Holmes or Daly or Tiger hits it on the TV freakshow, how many golfers/consumers think the ball goes too far [b[for them[/b], or that strategies have been lost because they now hit the ball too far?
The process you wish for will never happen. How do I know? Because of Pat Mucci's 'Joy of hitting it shorter' thread from 2 weeks ago. In spite of what Pat wrote in that thread, in spite of Pat's love of architecture and strategy and classic courses, he will be trying to hit it as far as possible with the latest and greatest equipment as soon as he can.
-
Tom D.,
I saw your question to Craig Sweet.
I would nominate the Purgatory course here in my home town.
I think you just need to up the par to about 78 when you play the back tees. :)
-
When golfers look in the mirror and take the blame for creating the distance issue and decide to do something about it then perhaps things will change.
Sean, you don't really believe that'll ever happen, do you? No matter how far JB Holmes or Daly or Tiger hits it on the TV freakshow, how many golfers/consumers think the ball goes too far [b[for them[/b], or that strategies have been lost because they now hit the ball too far?
The process you wish for will never happen. How do I know? Because of Pat Mucci's 'Joy of hitting it shorter' thread from 2 weeks ago. In spite of what Pat wrote in that thread, in spite of Pat's love of architecture and strategy and classic courses, he will be trying to hit it as far as possible with the latest and greatest equipment as soon as he can.
Andy
If this is the case, perhaps there isn't a distance problem. I have yet to be convinced of any problem, but that is mostly down to my own inability to play the game properly and not givin' a toss for what professionals do. The pro game is for pros to sort out.
I don't know if the punter will ever tire of spending on the next biggest and best. You are probably right, they most likely won't. I am convinced that relying on the USGA to solve any distance problem is a long wait for nothing. The distance issue has been brewing for nearly as long as the USGA has existed.
It is down to the individual to decide when enough is enough. I find it hard to take a guy's complaint about distance seriously when he is hitting the best ball and a driver that is big enough to be a house cornerstone. I am much more apt to listen to a guy who has personally taken a stand and refuses to spend money on the new gear.
Ciao
Sean
-
name a good 7500 yard course which is also an interesting 6500 yard course. Just one, please. I don't believe the two are really compatible.
Stonebridge Ranch The Dye Course. 7300 tips-6300 members.
They have had several q-schools there and the boys get pretty beat up by it.
I am a 3-4 hdcp and dont it it Bubba Holmes or anything, but I can carry it 245-255 or so and was playing with a buddy that hit it short. He wanted to play the 6300 tees so I agreed.
I started my round carrying all the trouble, only to find out Mr. Dye had made it virtually impossible to play from past the intended landing area. It's been some time since that round, and I cant quite remember what horrible troubles I found myself in, but I do remember hitting a lot of 3 and 4 irons they rest of the day.
I am not saying this qualifies as a great course, but Pete did find a way to slow "speeders" down.
-
The ruination certainly started with the PGA Tour and the all the hoopla associated there with.
In the beginning, you hold an event, you like the event, and you want to host the event a second time. Naturally, before you do anything, you reflect upon the last years event, discuss with PGA Tour, and see how things can improve.
Ain't nobody embarking on course redos/renovations etc. without getting some sort of head nods from the Tour if you want an event or want to keep an event.
And if you want an event, you ain't getting squat until the Tour visits, and you implement any 'suggestions' from the Tour. It is just natural that the Tour imposes this on a course to display their product.
A truly bad combination of technology (long ball), greed, money in regards to the playing fields.
If you like building longer courses every 5 to 10 years, or making your course 'better' or 'tougher' then it's your cup of tea and this is truly the golden age of new equipment.
The sad or tough part is that everyone benefits from the new ball and technology affecting Tour sites. This ultimately requires much expensive work on many more courses.
This golden age of new equipment combined with the money and greed of sports has affected many playing fields.
Tournaments have been responsible for pushing course changes and the Tour has been a big part of that.
-
It does seem everything exploded with the coming of Tiger. Tour purse money went through the roof, equipment changes came fast and furious, work out facilities are the norm on tour now,additional "minor league" tours were established, long drive contest were organized and became something other than a "freak show" and are now regular ESPN fodder.
I say blame it all on Tiger....
I think the continued use of classic courses to host tournaments is a misguided effort to fit a new model into an old way of doing things. The sooner people wake up and realize this is not working, the better. People need to put aside their notion that classic courses can and should host tournaments for players of this caliber.
-
If this is the case, perhaps there isn't a distance problem. I have yet to be convinced of any problem, but that is mostly down to my own inability to play the game properly and not givin' a toss for what professionals do. The pro game is for pros to sort out.
Sean, I couldn't agree more.
For myself, I play ok, maybe drive it 255-260 if I catch it and I have not seen my distance make the game too easy, or make classic courses too short.
t is down to the individual to decide when enough is enough. I find it hard to take a guy's complaint about distance seriously when he is hitting the best ball and a driver that is big enough to be a house cornerstone. I am much more apt to listen to a guy who has personally taken a stand and refuses to spend money on the new gear.
Again, I agree, but would take it a step further.
If someone feels the strategy of a classic course has been lost
because the clubs and/or balls are too long, then by all means, use older clubs and older balls. If the game has become less fun because you hit it too far, please, play without a modern driver. Use hickories. There are ways to ensure you will hit it short enough that the hazards/contours/strategies again come into play.
If your concern is how JB Holmes or Tiger plays the course, well, not sure why anyone else should care? I have had the good fortune to play the Old Course several times, and it was thrilling, and the hazards definitely applied to me. Carrying Hell into the breeze was a definite decision. Do I care, or was my enjoyment impacted, because Daly can fly the ball past some things I needed to consider and navigate around? Nope.
-
I think the continued use of classic courses to host tournaments is a misguided effort to fit a new model into an old way of doing things. The sooner people wake up and realize this is not working, the better. People need to put aside their notion that classic courses can and should host tournaments for players of this caliber.
I agree. It's too late to retrofit the modern game of golf into the classic old courses, and the effort to retrofit the classic courses into the modern game of golf is an abomination.
-
The issue is, when is a game "mature" so that further changes tend to harm the game rather than help it. Obviously this is a matter of taste. As noted in other threads, most observers think that tennis has been harmed at the highest level by the new equipment which allows greater pace and spin without any significant benefit to the amateur. The loss of spectator interest has added to the decline of tennis as a participant sport. In golf, the difference is more subtle. It depends in part on the importance of classic architecture. Until recently the classic courses provided an interesting test to the greatest players while allowing the amateur a chance to experience the challenge of these courses without too many differences. While the disparity between the types of players was great, it was related more to skill and accuracy than to strength and distance because the nature of the equipment (softer balls with greater spin, smaller clubheads requiring greater precision in striking) emphasized these characteristics. While I agree that there are more players capable of hitting it long today, if you saw Nicklaus in his prime or studied Snead etc, there is no reason to believe that they could not have kept up given the same equipment.
But the difference now is that the synergy between the new balls and clubs increases as swing speed increases so that the disparity in distance between the pros and the ams has grown and continues to grow. Thus they can no longer play the same courses. The pros can no longer be fairly tested by the benchmark courses and have no way to measure thenselves against Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus etc. A course wishing to be deemed "championship" must be made longer. Acquisition and maintenance costs go up and the amateur can't reasonably enjoy the experience. The game was mature and the changes have only weakened it.
Was all this "caused" by the tour? Probably not; there are a large number of culprits. But many of our young people are drawn to sport by watching their professinal heroes and many other amateurs use the pro tours as benchmarks for what is good. Serve as a green chairman and listen to your members compare your course conditions to those on TV and you'll see what I mean. Thus if there is to be change (and I am dubious that it will come) it must occur at the pro level. The USGA must do its part but if the pro tours would stand up, change would come that much sooner. Will the ball companies object? That's an interesting question. Titleist would but for those trying to get market share, a change in the rules might give them a better chance as Titleisr's advantage would be lessened. So long as the pros were bound, there would be little amateur objection. Alternatively, amateurs could play whatever they wanted in nontournament rounds and if a market continued to exist, the manufacturers could supply it.
-
Rather silly, all in all, for a $2 ball. Just do the tourney ball thingy, and all will follow. Or would it be better to change all the courses for millions again in another 5-10 years.
The people writing the B&I rules do not make B&I quipment and cannot possibly know, and will never ever know, as much as the manufacturers.
By nature, the manufacturers will always find ways around the rules.
Out of the trade show, I noticed someone was touting a hollow core ball. I guess we should ask the USGA/R&A what they have done to evaluate a hollow core ball. Probably nothing except testing the ball if submitted.
There will be more ideas on how to gain distance within the existing rules. And ideas do not have to be submitted to the USGA. As the manufacturers normally test before submittal, the USGA will likely never know until it is on the market that they have been out-foxed again.
The manufacturers' leading promoters & sellers, the Tour, will always demand advancement.
-
maybe Jack should designate a lesser flying ball for The Memorial...he's been maybe the leading voice in this regard for about 20 years, and the boys usually wack par around pretty good there, and I guarantee at least some players would show up, cause not all of them have zillions...
-
It's the equipment manufacturer's fault, for innovatively building more advanced equipment to make the game a little easier in an attempt to make a profit and build on it by advertising on TV.
It's the Tour player's fault, for accepting a check from the manufacturers and playing their equipment in an attempt to play better, make more money, and get more air time on TV.
It's the Tour administration's fault, for choosing over-conditioned, long, pretty, and difficult courses every week and broadcasting them all on TV.
It's the course developer's fault, for catering to the masses and demanding architects build them courses that look like the ones they see on TV.
It's the course architect's fault, for selling out and acquiescing to the developer's demands for a course that looks like the ones they see on TV.
It's the player's fault, for believing his TV is always right and that the courses it shows him are the ones to play, and insisting that whatever course he belongs to or pays fees at looks as much like the TV courses as possible.
It's the player's friends' fault, for being impressed and jealous when a friend plays a place they've seen on TV and comes back with a hat proudly proclaiming as much.
It's the greens committee's fault, for being made up of groups of those players who demand that their superintendent make their course look and play like the ones on TV.
It's the superintendent's fault, for not putting his job on the line by going against the greens committee and instead giving them a course that looks like the ones they see on TV.
It's the TV maker's fault, for making a product that turns people into zombies who define their hobbies (and the equipment they use, and the people they try to emulate, and the places they perform their hobbies) by what they see on TV.
It's the Open Championship's fault, for being on TV only once a year.
Maybe if people spent less time in front of it and more time finding courses they enjoyed, it'd all resolve itself.
-
Another dream would be for the Tour to stick to TPC courses, plus a fixed rota for the majors, or just build new courses for the majors.
The urge to play the classics can also be laid at the feet of those sitting in Far Hills.
I did not mean to imply I have no fault (I do own some Pro Vs ). But I agree with the idea to roll the ball back and I'll take that lick on my game.
-
I agree with others who have said that the US Open and the Masters most impact the way much of the golfing world views course design and setup. Of these two, I am more inclined to place blame on the US Open because it the USGA is our governing body, and therefore owes us a duty to only act "for the good of the game." The US Open sets the standard for what should be considered a good, challenging championship golf course, and unfortunately many courses are influenced by what they see at the USOpen.
So when the USGA stretches Bethpage to absurd lengths and sets it up so that some of the top golfers in the world cannot even reach some of the fairways, this sends a message. And when the USGA chooses courses like Torrey Pines South (very long and a great view, but far from great) to host our national championship, it sends a message.
Ocassionally they send a message I can support (like considering public courses for our nat'l championship,) but generally the message they send is not good for architecture and not "good for the game."
, Bogey....I think the Old Works is a pretty good golf course from several of its tee's...to name one.
I like Old Works very much but not sure one could consider it a great course from any tee . . .
Plus, there are a number of holes which are significanly different (and arguably better) from the back tees. No. 1 and No. 10 are two examples-- both have back tees calling for an interesting diagonal drive over the creek while the other tees are all on the other side of the creek. Similarly, I recall a few other holes where the back tee required a choice of just how much rough or hazard or slag to carry from the tee, and the others tees required much less choice.
-
Well, like I said Old Works is a GOOD course from various tees. I agree, from the tips #1 and #10 are very different holes than they are from the next set of forward tees...
Phantom Hills is another Montana course thats pretty good from several different tees...
-
Sean, I couldn't agree more.
For myself, I play ok, maybe drive it 255-260 if I catch it and I have not seen my distance make the game too easy, or make classic courses too short.
Let's see if I understand this.
You are a vastly inferior talent when compared to Hogan, Snead, Sarazen and others, yet you routinely outdrive them by a good margin.
But, you don't think technology has changed the play of golf classic golf courses, the same ones they played ?
Or have you forgotten that these courses have all been lengthened to counter act the trend.
t is down to the individual to decide when enough is enough. I find it hard to take a guy's complaint about distance seriously when he is hitting the best ball and a driver that is big enough to be a house cornerstone. I am much more apt to listen to a guy who has personally taken a stand and refuses to spend money on the new gear.
Again, I agree, but would take it a step further.
If someone feels the strategy of a classic course has been lost
because the clubs and/or balls are too long, then by all means, use older clubs and older balls.
Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?
When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?
If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ? ;D
And, while finding old clubs is relatively easy, where do you find old balls, except on TEPaul ?
If the game has become less fun because you hit it too far, please, play without a modern driver. Use hickories. There are ways to ensure you will hit it short enough that the hazards/contours/strategies again come into play.
It's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.
If your concern is how JB Holmes or Tiger plays the course, well, not sure why anyone else should care? I have had the good fortune to play the Old Course several times, and it was thrilling, and the hazards definitely applied to me. Carrying Hell into the breeze was a definite decision. Do I care, or was my enjoyment impacted, because Daly can fly the ball past some things I needed to consider and navigate around? Nope.
Except when Susan Daly, age 9 is the one carrying Hell Bunker into the breeze, then you'll care, but, it will be too late.
-
Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?
When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?
If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ? ;D
If the game has become less fun because you hit it too far, please, play without a modern driver. Use hickories. There are ways to ensure you will hit it short enough that the hazards/contours/strategies again come into play.
It's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.
late.[/b]
Pat
I play in a few tournaments, but generally try to avoid them or play in ones which are are easy to enjoy myself while playing. I play for money nearly every time out. Not much though, just enough to keep things interesting. I am not bothererd about getting an "edge" or being disadvantaged. Guys that carry on complaining about distance then contribute to the problem by hitting mega drivers and the best balls don't make sense to me unless you are a top amateur or pro. Even then they are putting their success as more important than their idea of what the game should be.
I generally don't have a problem "interfacing" with architecture. It seems to come naturally to the vast majority of guys I see on golf courses. True, there are some courses which I really enjoy that technology has passed by. The solution is simple. Don't play these old favourites or don't use ultra modern equipment.
The distance problem isn't new. If golfers continue to rely on somebody else to solve the problem then the next generation of golfers will have this same conversation, just as the past four generations have. If the USGA ever decides to act and I believe they will, it will be a compromise which has little effect. A USGA action will come nowhere near a rollback to 1995 or whatever date people think was optimum "interfacing" between architecture and technology. Any action on the part of the USGA may stop some advances for the future. It isn't going to stop 300 yard drives.
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean,
The "distance" problem is new.
For the first time, golfers can swing as hard as they want without fear of consequence.
The ball, vis a vis the equipment goes straighter.
When you combine this with swinging harder ....... unbelievable distance is the new byproduct.
Mishits go farther then the best drives of 40 years ago.
Explain that.
-
"Is the PGA Tour primarily responsible for the ruination of classic architecture?"
Patrick:
Aren't you the one who's so often says you see your friends and some contemporaries hitting the ball so much farther today than they used to?
Are all those friends and contemporaries of yours on the PGA Tour? ;)
-
TEPaul,
Surely, you've heard of the "trickle down" effect. ;D
-
Pat
If a golfer can swing as hard as he can without fear of consequence then it is the fault of the designer and/or the set up of the course. I watch pros often enough to know that on proper courses their sprayed drives are penalized. Watch a tape of nearly any Open.
Pros and commentators have been complaining about the distance flat bellies achieve since anybody cared to read about golf. Drives haven't suddenly gone from 150 to 315 overnight. There has been steady progress with balls and sticks over 125 years. The advancements of today were made possible by the advancements of yesterday. Courses have been lengthening since 1900ish to combat distance. So the distance problem certainly isn't new.
I am guessing that the recent quantum leap in technology which has effectively skipped a generation or two of normal progression is what has people up in arms. If progress had gone on at a steady pace and the distances achieved today weren't achieved for 20 years, would so many people be on the distance band wagon?
Either way all golfers have to answer the same question. Do they care about the distance issue enough to not use equipment which affords "unbelievable distance"? When enough people answer that question positively then there is a chance for effective change. There is no point in hammering on about distance when you are stood in the proshop swinging the latest driver while the pro is ringing up a dozen mega fly balls on the register.
Ciao
Sean
-
OK, so the Haskell ball went much farther than the balls it superceded. Was it also straighter? I have a hunch that just about 100 years ago this whole scenario played out except there was no PGA Tour to televise.
-
Brent
I know since I was a child companies have fooled around with dimple patterns looking for straighter flight. I am totally clueless to what degree ball flight was improved.
It has been my impression that when the rubber core ball came into existence it flew farther, but the flight was less predictable. This was especially true around greens. The old gp was much easier to control. Can anybody confirm either way?
Ciao
Sean
-
Let's see if I understand this.
You are a vastly inferior talent when compared to Hogan, Snead, Sarazen and others, yet you routinely outdrive them by a good margin.
Pat, we've never played together--how can you state that I am vastly inferior? That would be like discussing a course you had never played ;)
But, you don't think technology has changed the play of golf classic golf courses, the same ones they played ?
I never said that. I said for me . Far different things.
Example--I played Inwood once, and on 18 I had a shorter club into the green than Jones' famous approach. Does that mean the course was too short to challenge me, or for me to enjoy? No, for me, the course was both challenging and fun, even though equipment has made the course play shorter for me than it did many years ago for a far better player like Jones.
Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?
When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?
If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ?
And, while finding old clubs is relatively easy, where do you find old balls, except on TEPaul ?
Then you need to make a choice Pat: play the game for fun, for the joy that you eloquently wrote about in your post several weeks ago, for the thrill of interfacing with the architecture. Or play it so you can win a $2 nassau from your buds.
Or best yet, play with buds who all agree to play with a 10 year old driver and you can have the best of al worlds.
t's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.
The features are obsolete if you hit the ball too far seems to be your contention. If that is the case, it should be very, very easy for you to remedy that (i.e. a simple change to the equipment you put in your bag will solve it).
If the Bottle Hole is no longer as thrilling/fun/interesting, then clearly you should not be hitting your latest and greatest Callaway. Bring a 10 year old driver with you, or use your 3 wood, and you can interface to your heart's content.
Except when Susan Daly, age 9 is the one carrying Hell Bunker into the breeze, then you'll care, but, it will be too late.
Pat, why exactly do I care what Susan does? My only concerns are my game, not Miss Daly's. As long as the features on the course are still applicable to me, then I am content. If the features are not applicable to me any longer, then I have two choices: accept it and carry on, or do something to bring the features back to relevance.
-
Yes, yes, yes. This has all happened before and was decried before by some.
And, no doubt, it will keep going. If you think anyone at the manufacturers are taking sabbaticals, you can forgetta about that.
And the trickle down is a flood. If you have not seen this at your course, you need to play outside the old man's group or the Sunday School nine hole match.
If you take the approach, oh well, it is just a game; I think you will continue to be flattened.
Such a shame to lessen so many courses because of the B&I.
$2 for the ball, millions for killing the courses.
-
"TEPaul,
Surely, you've heard of the "trickle down" effect." :)
Patrick:
Yes, I have heard of the trickle down effect, some people use it in an economic context, but is there a point somewhere in that remark of yours? ;)
-
Even if it's a bit OT it is indirectly related to this thread since excessive distance is the underlying issue----and so I'd just like to remark that the chairman of the "Equipment Standards" Committee of the USGA (the old B&I Committee), Jim Vernon, gave a very impressive committee report at the USGA annual meeting in Atlanta last Saturday, in my opinion.
He certainly did not spell out details of any new I&B rules and regulations in our future but it sure as hell sounded to me like they're coming. If and when they do it looks like they'll be in these two areas they're calling "moment of inertia" and "spin generation" (spin rate).
When they come the next big question is what will the manufacturers say and do about them?
If the manufacturers blanch, even in the slightest, my recommendation would be that every single golfer that can be mustered in the USA should jump all over the manufacturers and tell them that they both want and expect them to comply to the very letter with the new USGA/R&A I&B rules and regs!
Something is coming down the USGA/R&A I&B rules and regs pipeline, Boys----mark my words.
Interestingly, it appears a new term was rolled out in that excellent report of "Equipment Standards" Committee chairman, Jim Vernon.
In the future I think we'll be hearing a lot more of this term---"de-skilling".
-
For those who would like to read it, here is Jim Vernon's report:
USGA Equipment Report (http://www.usga.org/news/2006/february/es.html)
Last night on the Golf Channel, I think I heard that J.B. Holmes ball speed is 193 MPH with an incredibly low spin rate for that speed (1750 RPM?). If Tom is right and spin rate is one thing that might get changed, then the ball will start going all over the lot for these guys and they might have to dial it back.
-
"If Tom is right and spin rate is one thing that might get changed, then the ball will start going all over the lot for these guys and they might have to dial it back."
John:
As you can see from the speech, spin rate is definitely one of the two factors. What I think they'd have to do is for the first time put a cap on or limit on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate (rpms) a ball can have. The tech guys imply what that would in effect do is not so much get balls going all over the lot side to side but it would keep the initial trajectory down more and that fact at the same ball speed or swing speed (particularly really high ball and swing speeds) would just not produce as much distance and carry distance.
-
Pat
If a golfer can swing as hard as he can without fear of consequence then it is the fault of the designer and/or the set up of the course. I watch pros often enough to know that on proper courses their sprayed drives are penalized. Watch a tape of nearly any Open.
Sean,
This is a very narrow view of proper design and setup. I just dont see 'penalizing sprayed shots' as the only goal of architecture. Anyone can set up a course to penalize sprayed shots, but that doesnt make it good design or setup. What about variety, interest, beauty, fun, etc?
Drives haven't suddenly gone from 150 to 315 overnight. There has been steady progress with balls and sticks over 125 years. The advancements of today were made possible by the advancements of yesterday. Courses have been lengthening since 1900ish to combat distance. So the distance problem certainly isn't new.
This is the conventional wisdom, but unfortunately not true. In the 70 years before 1993, average driving distance of top golfers increased a little over 30 yards, total. In the 12 years since 1993, average driving distance of top players has increased close to the same (around 29 yards.)
I am guessing that the recent quantum leap in technology which has effectively skipped a generation or two of normal progression is what has people up in arms. If progress had gone on at a steady pace and the distances achieved today weren't achieved for 20 years, would so many people be on the distance band wagon?
Your guess is a little short. It would take close to 60 years of similar progression to get to the point we have come in just the past 12 years. A six decade leap in a little over a decade.
Either way all golfers have to answer the same question. Do they care about the distance issue enough to not use equipment which affords "unbelievable distance"? When enough people answer that question positively then there is a chance for effective change. There is no point in hammering on about distance when you are stood in the proshop swinging the latest driver while the pro is ringing up a dozen mega fly balls on the register.
This argument rings hollow to me. Why can't someone simultaneously play by the rules and advocate their change. For example, I have heard American football players suggest that their game would be better and safer with less protective equipment, yet they'd be fools to compete without their protective gear.
So long as golf involves competition, even at the lowest level, golfers will want to at least neutralize the equipment advantage of their competitors. This is entirely consistent with wanting the entire game to roll back a bit.
An example. I was playing a friendly match with my regular group this weekend, when because of high winds we decided to skip the back nine and start on one again. I decided it might be fun to use my hickories and switched clubs for the second front nine, even though the match was continuing (and I had a slight lead.) Not only did I get my hat handed to me, but the experience was much less enjoyable for everyone. We were no longer playing the same game.
Now next week I'll play with my regular clubs because I enjoy the competition. But given my option, I'd much rather they switched to my equipment rather than me to theirs.
-
Tom,
The odd thing is that if you look up the Pro V1s in the Conforming Ball list, they say it is a Medium spin ball off the driver and High off the irons. The only balls that Titleist makes that are Low spin are the various DT So-Los, a few NXTs and some other lesser known balls. Calloway makes some high-end balls listed as Low spin with the driver and most of Nikes are listed as Low.
-
I have seen minimum spin discussed on this site more than a few times. :)
That would be one way to work at the distance issue. Much of the golf ball 'boutique' construction has been aimed at this very goal, reducing or optimizing spin rates for some time now.
The discussion is welcome news indeed. Maybe our continued check writing is paying off.
-
If (and I recognize that it is still a LARGE if!) USGA can find a way through spin rates and MOI to dial back the pros in more or less the same proportion that the pros have gained distance, with no bifurcation and without extreme penalties to rank and file golfers, then the wait will have been well spent, and apologies will be in order. I hope that is the case.
-
I would prefer the term 'pro-skilling' as in promoting all skills.
Seems like USGA discussion is moving forward albeit slowly.
USGA is still woefully behind the manufacturers as they cannot manufacture many clubheads or balls.
But, there is hope and maybe even hope for cooperation by manufacturers.
-
This is the conventional wisdom, but unfortunately not true. In the 70 years before 1993, average driving distance of top golfers increased a little over 30 yards, total. In the 12 years since 1993, average driving distance of top players has increased close to the same (around 29 yards.)
Odd grouping of years you have made Dave. Is there a reason you chose 1923 as your starting point, when Sean pointedly said 125 years? Does it have anything to do with availability of stats (or lack of availability) before that time?
Also, who are the 'top golfers'? US pro tour? European pro tour? Leading ams? What are the distances you are you referring to, such as what the leading players hit it in 1923 and 1993 and today.
This argument rings hollow to me. Why can't someone simultaneously play by the rules and advocate their change. For example, I have heard American football players suggest that their game would be better and safer with less protective equipment, yet they'd be fools to compete without their protective gear.
Yet it makes sense to me. How serious can most people really be about the game being ruined or compromised by too much distance if they themselves insist on using the equipment they accuse of ruining the game? If the game is more fun or challenging or interesting without the newest equipment, then it stands to reason that those who feel that way would play without such equipment. Otherwise, it is only fair to conclude that the chance to win a $2 nassau means more than the fun or challenge or interest, is it not?
If the game of golf is more interesting/challenging/fun with the older equipment, then why is it hard for you to convince the people you play with to use older drivers?
-
Pat
If a golfer can swing as hard as he can without fear of consequence then it is the fault of the designer and/or the set up of the course. I watch pros often enough to know that on proper courses their sprayed drives are penalized. Watch a tape of nearly any Open.
Sean,
This is a very narrow view of proper design and setup. I just dont see 'penalizing sprayed shots' as the only goal of architecture. Anyone can set up a course to penalize sprayed shots, but that doesnt make it good design or setup. What about variety, interest, beauty, fun, etc?
Dave
Just checking that we are still talking about the top players. At their level I don't give a hang if they are happy or not with the setup or the architecture. The two biggest complaints on here about setups has been Carnoustie in '99 and Shinny a few years later. I thought Carnoustie was the best Open I have seen since The Duel in the Sun. Obviously I enjoyed the two Opens for very different reasons. One because of the magnificent scoring due in large part to the weather and the other because of the inability of pros to play the course as they find it. Great stuff either way. Shinny was great viewing again because pros wouldn't play the course (or the hole) as they found it.
Dave, I am not sure where you are coming from. For the rest of us poor slashers, I have rarely seen more variety and beauty or had more fun and interesting time on a golf course as I have at Open venues.
Ciao
Sean
-
David Moriarty:
If the USGA/R&A comes in with some new I&B rules and regulations soon which judging by the report USGA "Equipment Standards" Committee chairman Jim Vernon just gave at the USGA annual meeting seems fairly likely, and for whatever reason some of the major ball and club manufacturers don't choose to conform this time and a significant slice of the golf public decided to buy that non-conforming equipment anyway, then what would you suggest be done?
There is a point to this question and that point is to try to show again what happened with balls and equipment in the last decade or so and why the regulatory bodies felt it necessary to proceed as they have to do something about it effectively without risking essentially upsetting the whole apple cart in the process.
-
Let's see if I understand this.
You are a vastly inferior talent when compared to Hogan, Snead, Sarazen and others, yet you routinely outdrive them by a good margin.
Pat, we've never played together--how can you state that I am vastly inferior? That would be like discussing a course you had never played ;)
When I look at all of the record books, I don't see your name.
On the other hand, I see Hogan's name quite frequently.[/color]
But, you don't think technology has changed the play of golf classic golf courses, the same ones they played ?
I never said that. I said for me . Far different things.
Example--I played Inwood once, and on 18 I had a shorter club into the green than Jones' famous approach. Does that mean the course was too short to challenge me, or for me to enjoy? No, for me, the course was both challenging and fun, even though equipment has made the course play shorter for me than it did many years ago for a far better player like Jones.
How do you think Inwood would fare if a U.S. Open was held there this June ?[/color]
Do either of you play matches for MONEY ?
Do either of you compete in tournaments ?
When you play for money or in tournaments do you use old clubs and balls ?
If so, are you available for a game every day this summer ?
And, while finding old clubs is relatively easy, where do you find old balls, except on TEPaul ?
Then you need to make a choice Pat: play the game for fun, for the joy that you eloquently wrote about in your post several weeks ago, for the thrill of interfacing with the architecture. Or play it so you can win a $2 nassau from your buds.
The two SHOULDN'T BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
But, high tech has made them so.
Don't also forget to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ....[/color]
Or best yet, play with buds who all agree to play with a 10 year old driver and you can have the best of al worlds.
Hell, I play with a ten year old driver, that's no big deal
Try getting four guys to play with persimmon or laminate from 40 years ago.[/color]
t's not an issue of fun, the issue is the failure of the architectural features to interface with the golfer's game because technology has rendered the features and their purpose, obsolete.
The features are obsolete if you hit the ball too far seems to be your contention. If that is the case, it should be very, very easy for you to remedy that (i.e. a simple change to the equipment you put in your bag will solve it).
So I should compete with equipment circa 1966 while others compete with equipment circa 2006.
Surely you jest.[/color]
If the Bottle Hole is no longer as thrilling/fun/interesting, then clearly you should not be hitting your latest and greatest Callaway. Bring a 10 year old driver with you, or use your 3 wood, and you can interface to your heart's content.
Sure, I'll be sure to place myself at a distinct disadvantage when I play in the National Singles tournament. That makes a lot of sense. And, again, I play with a ten year old driver.[/color]
Except when Susan Daly, age 9 is the one carrying Hell Bunker into the breeze, then you'll care, but, it will be too late.
Pat, why exactly do I care what Susan does? My only concerns are my game, not Miss Daly's. As long as the features on the course are still applicable to me, then I am content. If the features are not applicable to me any longer, then I have two choices: accept it and carry on, or do something to bring the features back to relevance.
Because, when she beats you like a drum, you'll be embarrassed, and don't tell me otherwise.[/color]
-
"TEPaul,
Surely, you've heard of the "trickle down" effect." :)
Patrick:
Yes, I have heard of the trickle down effect, some people use it in an economic context, but is there a point somewhere in that remark of yours? ;)
TEPaul,
Noone is watching me and my friends play golf on the weekends.
Millions of people are watching the PGA Tour Pros play.
Millions are watching what golf courses have done to themselves, including club Presidents, Board Members, Green Chairman and Green Committeemen, and those are the people who are influenced to the degree that they seek to alter their home courses to reflect what they've seen on TV.
Those influences, gleened from watching the PGA Tour Pros and the courses they play, manifest themselves in the disfigurement of their home courses.
-
Odd grouping of years you have made Dave. Is there a reason you chose 1923 as your starting point, when Sean pointedly said 125 years? Does it have anything to do with availability of stats (or lack of availability) before that time?
I got the numbers from an old magazine article where, if I recall correctly, they were recording actual driving distances of a handful of top players. The 1923 date is mistaken-- it should be 1918. So in the 75 years after 1918, distance increased about 32 yards. I used 1918 because it seemed to me to be one of the only sources for driving distance and one that struck me as probably reliable.
I used 1993 because this seems to be approximately where things really took off.
However you look at it, the jump in the past decade or so has been absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented-- at least since 1918.
Also, who are the 'top golfers'? US pro tour? European pro tour? Leading ams? What are the distances you are you referring to, such as what the leading players hit it in 1923 and 1993 and today.
I used the PGA Tour average driving distances (which I believe is the top 150 players or so.) To be consistent with the previous sample, I should probably have focused only on the best of the best. My guess is that doing so would boost the most recent numbers up near or above the 300 yd mark and further increase the jump we've seen in the last dozen years.
How serious can most people really be about the game being ruined or compromised by too much distance if they themselves insist on using the equipment they accuse of ruining the game? If the game is more fun or challenging or interesting without the newest equipment, then it stands to reason that those who feel that way would play without such equipment. Otherwise, it is only fair to conclude that the chance to win a $2 nassau means more than the fun or challenge or interest, is it not?
This is not a fair conclusion at all.
You are forgetting one important factor and the focus of Patrick's post and this website-- the architecture. The new equipment is not only causing ruinious changes to our great courses, but is also greatly expanding the gap between long hitters and short hitters. Whatever equipment I choose to play with has absolutely nothing to do with this problem, and this is the only problem with which I am concerned.
One need not martyr oneself every Sunday in order to recognize this problem and advocate change.
__________________________
TEPaul said:
If the USGA/R&A comes in with some new I&B rules and regulations soon which judging by the report USGA "Equipment Standards" Committee chairman Jim Vernon just gave at the USGA annual meeting seems fairly likely, and for whatever reason some of the major ball and club manufacturers don't choose to conform this time and a significant slice of the golf public decided to buy that non-conforming equipment anyway, then what would you suggest be done?
Tom,
First, I'd be thrilled if they did something that made a significant difference. I just hope that waiting so long to act hasn't hindered their ability to do so effectively.
Your question assumes that the bulk of the golfing public will be hurt by the changes, and i dont think this is necessarily the case. It is possible for the USGA to bring balance back into the game by pushing hard on the biggest and best, and less so on the little guy. Look at it this way . . . ball technology has disproportionately helped those with extremely high swing speeds; if new rules disproportionately limited these same individuals the game could be brought back into balance without killing the little guy. This approach also gives the manufacturers to focus their technology on the players who need it most.
But assume the USGA impliments rules where everyone's game takes a hit and everyone could be doing better with nonconforming stuff. I still think most avidavid golfers would still play by the rules. Nonetheless, here are a few suggestions of how to help them along . . .
--Make sure Augusta and the PGATour are on board . . . that way the best in the world will still play conforming equipment, equipment manufacturers will likely still manufacture it, and golfers will still want to play what the Tour guys play.
-- Dont allow the use of non-conforming equipment in any tournament at any level of golf. National, regional, and local governing bodies should refuse to sanction any sort of event wher the rules are not followed.
-- Refuse to issue handicaps to those who wont follow the rules.
-- Better yet, forbid the use of non-conforming equipment at your clubs. If they can do it for the cell phone or shorts, then why not cheaters clubs.
-- Refuse to play matches with those who use 'cheater' equipment. Better yet, refuse to play with those using 'cheater' equipment.
-- Boycott companies that sell 'cheater' stuff.
As for those who still want to play the cheater stuff, just ignore them. Some people refuse to play by the USGA rules now, so why should new equipment rules be any different?
There is a point to this question and that point is to try to show again what happened with balls and equipment in the last decade or so and why the regulatory bodies felt it necessary to proceed as they have to do something about it effectively without risking essentially upsetting the whole apple cart in the process.
On this point we will have to disagree. Think of all of the advancements that have been made while the USGA has been trying to figure out what to do. As they let each new advancement go to the public their job became harder and harder. I for one would have liked to have seen them take a stand long ago. After all, it isnt as if noone saw this coming.
-
"Your question assumes that the bulk of the golfing public will be hurt by the changes, and i dont think this is necessarily the case."
David:
So as to get squarely on the same page here so we can have an accurate and intelliegent discussion, let me first say as many times as I've looked at that question of mine, I just can't see any conceivable way I said or impled the bulk of the golfing public will be hurt by any changes I may have implied may be coming down the I&B rules and regulations pipeline. So please explain why you said that.
-
"On this point we will have to disagree. Think of all of the advancements that have been made while the USGA has been trying to figure out what to do. As they let each new advancement go to the public their job became harder and harder. I for one would have liked to have seen them take a stand long ago. After all, it isnt as if noone saw this coming."
David:
As I'm sure you can imagine, I think a statement like this one of yours is quite naive---actually more than quite naive--it's remarkably naive---and that's not a good thing from the perspective of a lawyer which you are. Would you like me to explain why I say that?
-
"Your question assumes that the bulk of the golfing public will be hurt by the changes, and i dont think this is necessarily the case."
David:
So as to get squarely on the same page here so we can have an accurate and intelliegent discussion, let me first say as many times as I've looked at that question of mine, I just can't see any conceivable way I said or impled the bulk of the golfing public will be hurt by any changes I may have implied may be coming down the I&B rules and regulations pipeline. So please explain why you said that.
You didn't say it. I thought you assumed it, but apparently I was mistaken. You described a scenario where "a significant slice of the golf public decided to buy that non-conforming equipment." The only scenario where I imagine this could happen would be if the USGA's new rules made the game more difficult for the bulk of the golfing public.
If we assume the new rules will not hurt the bulk of the golfing public, then I dont think the equipment manufacturers will have much luck convincing the bulk of golfers to forget about the rules and play nonconforming equipment.
In other words, if the USGA is smart about their rule changes then I dont think many golfers will switch to cheater equipment.
. . .
If I were the USGA I would try to reign in the big guys while still allowing some room for new technology to help the little guys.
-
So many words spent...
Modern technology makes the game enjoyable. Golf is fun. Hitting it further is fun.
I am not a member of the PGA tour. If THEY want to pull back on the equipment, let them do it.
If the USGA feels they are speaking for ALL golfers, or even the majority of golfers,as they wade through this issue ,they are sadly mistaken.
Leave the equipment alone...Let it be...
-
"On this point we will have to disagree. Think of all of the advancements that have been made while the USGA has been trying to figure out what to do. As they let each new advancement go to the public their job became harder and harder. I for one would have liked to have seen them take a stand long ago. After all, it isnt as if noone saw this coming."
David:
As I'm sure you can imagine, I think a statement like this one of yours is quite naive---actually more than quite naive--it's remarkably naive---and that's not a good thing from the perspective of a lawyer which you are. Would you like me to explain why I say that?
As I have explained many times I am not currently practicing law and glad for it, so perhaps this as much as anything explains my apparent credulity.
I will say that IMLNLNO (In My Layman, Non-Lawyerly, Naive Opinion), the threat of crippling lawsuits against the USGA has been greatly overblown over the past decade. If anything, the USGA might have recently created a potential liability problem for themselves when they announced that there will be no rollbacks and that what is legal will stay legal. But again, that is just my IMLNLNO.
-
"As I have explained many times I am not currently practicing law and glad for it, so perhaps this as much as anything explains my apparent credulity.
I will say that IMLNLNO (In My Layman, Non-Lawyerly, Naive Opinion), the threat of crippling lawsuits against the USGA has been greatly overblown over the past decade. If anything, the USGA might have recently created a potential liability problem for themselves when they announced that there will be no rollbacks and that what is legal will stay legal. But again, that is just my IMLNLNO."
David:
All of that some may find personally interesting but in the broad scheme of this general golf distance issue it's not relevent. Would you like to recouch it into something that is relevent to the USGA and the manufacturers and the rest of us with this distance issue?
-
All of that some may find personally interesting but in the broad scheme of this general golf distance issue it's not relevent. Would you like to recouch it into something that is relevent to the USGA and the manufacturers and the rest of us with this distance issue?
Again I respectfully disagree. The threat of litigation as a result of rule changes is very relevant to any discussion of potential changes, as is behavior by the USGA which might have made their subsequent efforts to make changes more difficult.
My status as an actively practicing or inactive lawyer is entirely irrelevant, but when I am referred to as a lawyer I feel compelled to clarify for many reasons.
-
So many words spent...
Modern technology makes the game enjoyable. Golf is fun. Hitting it further is fun.
I am not a member of the PGA tour. If THEY want to pull back on the equipment, let them do it.
If the USGA feels they are speaking for ALL golfers, or even the majority of golfers,as they wade through this issue ,they are sadly mistaken.
Yes golf is fun and it is fun to hit it hard, but this is about balance in the game and the survival of our great courses.
Fix the equipment and golf will still be fun and it will still be fun to hit the ball far. Plus our great courses will survive, and a long hitter and a short hitter will again be challenged by the same course.
Leave the equipment alone...Let it be...
If only the USGA had said this to the manufacturers a while back we would not have to have this discussion.
-
Craig,
Since you seem to think that hitting it further and straighter is fun, can I ask where you would draw the line as being too much? What if technology could help you play better and shoot 66, and it'd be fine if Tiger was shooting 55 with the same stuff? Would a 66 really be any better than a 77 is today if Tiger is shooting 55? It might be fun for a bit, but after a while you'd realize that 66 really isn't that good and you'd need another technology "fix" to keep enjoying yourself.
Have you ever seen that Twilight Zone episode where a gambler dies and goes to heaven? He's in a casino where he keeps winning at everything he tries, and at first he really enjoys it but after a while it drives him so crazy to win every time that he demands to be taken to hell. Whereupon he finds out he's been in hell all along.
-
If there were some magic technology that would let me go around my home course in 66 strokes, propelling the ball by swinging a golf club, playing it down and putting it out...
I think that would be really fun. It wouldn't bother me if Tiger could therefore play Augusta National in 50 strokes or if winning our club championship then required shooting in the 40's. Of course it would be fun to hit the ball that far and that accurately.
-
Doug, first of all I would STILL have to be able to EXECUTE. You do not shot 66 solely because of equipment.
The game still requires the ability to putt and chip. The game still requires a consistant, solid swing.
I get the impression that 99% of the "anti-new technology" people think everyone hits the ball 350 yards and straight as an arrow when they pick up a Nike golf ball and the SQ driver.
Do you seriously think that you and I (and I have no idea how good a golfer you are) could play Pine Valley, Merion, AGNC, or any other classic course and render it obsolete? I doubt it.
-
When I look at all of the record books, I don't see your name.
On the other hand, I see Hogan's name quite frequently.
For shame Pat. How can you really judge the merits of a course, err player, by reading about it in a book? ;D
How do you think Inwood would fare if a U.S. Open was held there this June ?
How would it fare? Do you mean, how would the players do in relation to par? I think they would go very low, US Open record low.
But, well, why does that matter? The fact that Tiger can destroy a course has no bearing on whether it is a fun course for me to play or its members to play.
But all of that is besides the point--I hit a shorter club into 18 than Bobby Jones did, and the course was an enjoyable and challenging one for me anyway.
Then you need to make a choice Pat: play the game for fun, for the joy that you eloquently wrote about in your post several weeks ago, for the thrill of interfacing with the architecture. Or play it so you can win a $2 nassau from your buds.
The two SHOULDN'T BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
But, high tech has made them so.
But they shouldn't be, not at all. You and your friends have chosen so.
Look at it this way---you want to ensure that the architecture remains relevant, that the golfers are forced to engage with what the architect created. You believe (and I agree) that the game is more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting that way (your ode to 'the joys of hitting it shorter' spoke well to this). Now, do your playing partners agree or disagree with you?
If they disagree with you, if they prefer to be able to blast past the bunker echelon on the Bottle Hole, then what does that tell you?
Conversely, if they agree with you, and they find the game more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting when they need to engage with the echelon, then why are all of you playing with clubs that enable you to hit past it?
Hell, I play with a ten year old driver, that's no big deal
Try getting four guys to play with persimmon or laminate from 40 years ago.
C'mon Pat, if the game is more fun/thrilling/etc without the distance gain of the last few years that you are worried about, and your friends agree with you, then it would be a simple issue. If nothing else, just use your 3 wood.
But I'd be more than happy to help you get 4 persimmon drivers if you need the help (I'd be willing to bet that between us we have 4 persimmon drives laying around).
The problem is, do your playing partners want to hand over their newest driver?
So I should compete with equipment circa 1966 while others compete with equipment circa 2006.
Surely you jest.
But why would your playing partners not want to use older equipment, if the game is more fun and interesting with it?
And stop calling me Shirley.
PS And yes, I would agree with you that if you are playing in a tournament it would not make sense to use older equipment. But what percentage of rounds of golf played are tournament rounds? I would posit it is a small number.
Sure, I'll be sure to place myself at a distinct disadvantage when I play in the National Singles tournament. That makes a lot of sense. And, again, I play with a ten year old driver.
I think it is a little unfair to conflate a national tournament with the vast majority of rounds of golf, just as it is unfair to comment on a shot Tiger or JB Holmes makes and treat it as something that mere mortals do.
Pat, why do you play with a 10 year old driver when there are better drivers made today?
-
Andy; its a nice theoretical position you take. However the discussion is placed in the context of the future of the game and its architecture. There can be no denying that the manner in which the game is played at the professional level has significant influence on the way it is perceived by the golfing public and thus how courses are designed and maintained. If the significant increases in distance at the professional level were perceived as irrelevant to the ordinary players' game, then it would follow that courses designed for member play would not be designed to accomodate increased distance. Yet it is difficult to find a new course which is not planned with tees stretching back well beyond 7000 yards. Even more disconcerting is the trend for older classic courses to remodel in an effort to stay relevant. Thus they seek to add length and may even add features which increase difficulty while limiting options. If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros. To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic. To preserve the challenge and our courses we should limit the equipment as is done in most sports. One of the great joys, and perhaps illusions, of our game has been the fact that we could play essentially the same game as the pros; not as well but essentially the same game and thus understand the challenges. As the distance disparity increases that charm is lost and the classes of players require separate playing fields in order to provide a reasonable challenge. In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts. If we want to preserve our classic courses and the challenges that they provide we must keep them relevant for current players. Equipment regulation, particularly related to the ball, is the best solution. I hope the USGA will follow through altthough history suggests to the contrary.
-
Andy; its a nice theoretical position you take. However the discussion is placed in the context of the future of the game and its architecture. There can be no denying that the manner in which the game is played at the professional level has significant influence on the way it is perceived by the golfing public and thus how courses are designed and maintained. If the significant increases in distance at the professional level were perceived as irrelevant to the ordinary players' game, then it would follow that courses designed for member play would not be designed to accomodate increased distance. Yet it is difficult to find a new course which is not planned with tees stretching back well beyond 7000 yards. Even more disconcerting is the trend for older classic courses to remodel in an effort to stay relevant. Thus they seek to add length and may even add features which increase difficulty while limiting options. If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros. To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic. To preserve the challenge and our courses we should limit the equipment as is done in most sports. One of the great joys, and perhaps illusions, of our game has been the fact that we could play essentially the same game as the pros; not as well but essentially the same game and thus understand the challenges. As the distance disparity increases that charm is lost and the classes of players require separate playing fields in order to provide a reasonable challenge. In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts. If we want to preserve our classic courses and the challenges that they provide we must keep them relevant for current players. Equipment regulation, particularly related to the ball, is the best solution. I hope the USGA will follow through altthough history suggests to the contrary.
SL
I do not understand how Tiger Woods or any pro can be blamed because a course is lengthened. Why do people want to lay the blame of distance at somebody elses feet? That is like blaming MacDonald's because you are fat.
If golfer's take responsibilty for their actions (seems all of American society is looking to unload blame onto somebody else) the distance problem could be solved much quicker. I have not seen one person on this site of blamists accept any responsibility for the distance problem. It is always up to somebody else to solve the problem. That attitude will leave a long road to haul. If distance is a problem with golf then golfers need to find a solution.
Ciao
Sean
-
"Again I respectfully disagree. The threat of litigation as a result of rule changes is very relevant to any discussion of potential changes, as is behavior by the USGA which might have made their subsequent efforts to make changes more difficult."
David:
Yes, I most certainly do agree with that. The threat of litigation and how the USGA has positioned itself in recent years due to that prospect is one of the most relevent and central issues of the entire subject of the USGA/R&A as the games ruling bodies in certain aspects of the game.
-
Andy; its a nice theoretical position you take. However the discussion is placed in the context of the future of the game and its architecture. There can be no denying that the manner in which the game is played at the professional level has significant influence on the way it is perceived by the golfing public and thus how courses are designed and maintained. If the significant increases in distance at the professional level were perceived as irrelevant to the ordinary players' game, then it would follow that courses designed for member play would not be designed to accomodate increased distance. Yet it is difficult to find a new course which is not planned with tees stretching back well beyond 7000 yards. Even more disconcerting is the trend for older classic courses to remodel in an effort to stay relevant. Thus they seek to add length and may even add features which increase difficulty while limiting options. If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros. To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic. To preserve the challenge and our courses we should limit the equipment as is done in most sports. One of the great joys, and perhaps illusions, of our game has been the fact that we could play essentially the same game as the pros; not as well but essentially the same game and thus understand the challenges. As the distance disparity increases that charm is lost and the classes of players require separate playing fields in order to provide a reasonable challenge. In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts. If we want to preserve our classic courses and the challenges that they provide we must keep them relevant for current players. Equipment regulation, particularly related to the ball, is the best solution. I hope the USGA will follow through altthough history suggests to the contrary.
SL
I do not understand how Tiger Woods or any pro can be blamed because a course is lengthened. Why do people want to lay the blame of distance at somebody elses feet? That is like blaming MacDonald's because you are fat.
If golfer's take responsibilty for their actions (seems all of American society is looking to unload blame onto somebody else) the distance problem could be solved much quicker. I have not seen one person on this site of blamists accept any responsibility for the distance problem. It is always up to somebody else to solve the problem. That attitude will leave a long road to haul. If distance is a problem with golf then golfers need to find a solution.
Ciao
Sean
Sean,
I'll take some responsibility. I practice to hit the ball better, part of which is further.
When I worked in a shop, I sold clubs based on their distance merits.
When I teach, I'll teach people how to hit the ball more squarely and therefore further.
I also will be buying a set of persimmon clubs to relearn the game and alternate based on the course.
-
I also will be buying a set of persimmon clubs to relearn the game and alternate based on the course.
Kyle - man if you are gonna go this route, you gotta go hickory - why stop halfway?
I'm here to tell you it's VERY fun.
IM me if you want purchasing details. It can be done relatively economically. And good lord are these things cool to look at.
;D
-
I have just read this thread...and have to agree that TV and it's piss poor commentators have a huge part to play.
Only Nick Faldo is prepared to tell the truth with regard to course set ups and lack of rough, and willing to complain about equipment getting way out of hand...the rest just keep encouraging the bombers of the game...seriuosly how intersting is it really to see 340 drives all day on a course lay out like the one in Phoenix which shows no imagination in course design...personally no interest at all...no wonder Nascar is the fastest growing sport in America..hell the Nascar ovals are just about as interesting as most of the layouts on the PGA tour anyway!
-
Andy; its a nice theoretical position you take.
Thanks, I'll take whatever praise I can get from this place.
If you have ever sat on a green committee you would be familiar with the comparison of your course to those played by the pros.
I have never been on a green committee, but this sounds like you are saying that equipment needs to be pulled back so courses will be protected from themselves. Or liquor stores should be closed because alcoholics might not be able to walk on by.
To expect players to place themselves at a perceived competitive disadvantage by refusing to use the best equipment permitted is unrealistic.
Shel, I do have some sympathy for this position, and tried to convey as much to Pat in terms of tournaments. I would not expect anyone to play with anything they thought put them at a disadvantage in a tournament. But the goals are different in a tournament vs the great majority of rounds (non-tournament).
In short, you make a fine debaters point but there are very few Rans, Rick Hollands and Dave Moriartys who will play hickories or even persimmon woods with steel shafts.
Those who find the game more enjoyable or fun that way will do so. I happen to find the game more fun by bringing half a set rather than 14 clubs, so that is what I tend to do. I have not found any good course that has lost its challenge for me, nor have I seen it from anybody I have played with.
With no snark intended, what good courses were challenging and fun for you 10 years ago but not today?
-
Sean; you are correct; you don't understand. (sarcasm intended). The issue is not about blame and if we are seeking to place blame I would place it on the rulesmakers. If Tiger or anyone else wants to win, it behooves him to use the best equipment and employ the best strategy given the current state of the game to achieve his goal. But it is undeniable that the effect of the manner in which the professional game is being played has impacted the way the golfing public perceives the game and has created new expectations for golf course architecture which has resulted in modifications to classic courses and the construction of new courses which are expensive and less enjoyable. If this is caused by an "American character flaw" so be it; it is real and it impacts the game. It doesn't help the game to say "I am above this and therefore it doesn't matter. Everyone should act like me." Even if your view is correct, and if one chooses to compete it probably isn't (as noted by Pat), too many others fail to recognize your superior position and they will cause the game to change taking with it the architectural character that we should try to preserve. That is why efforts to rein in technology are so important. Examine the nature of the new courses being built and ask yourself whether they are as conducive to the style of game you profess to play as are the more classic courses. They are not and the change in the game at the highest level which is directly related to equipment is a principal cause.
-
I do not understand how Tiger Woods or any pro can be blamed because a course is lengthened. Why do people want to lay the blame of distance at somebody elses feet? That is like blaming MacDonald's because you are fat.
If golfer's take responsibilty for their actions (seems all of American society is looking to unload blame onto somebody else) the distance problem could be solved much quicker. I have not seen one person on this site of blamists accept any responsibility for the distance problem. It is always up to somebody else to solve the problem. That attitude will leave a long road to haul. If distance is a problem with golf then golfers need to find a solution.
Sean, you are correct that we should not blame Tiger Woods or any pro for the distance problem, after all they are simply trying to do what they can to minimize their scores within the rules of golf. But I dont think Shel is blamining them, nor is anyone else. Rather, we are just advocating a change in the rules of the game to bring the game and its achitecture back into balance.
The only one here I see blaming players is you. You've got this notion that if I just changed my game the problem would go away. When I play with my hickories, the problem still exists. When I play with my 50s MacGregors the problem still exists. When I play with my modern clubs, the problem still exists.
Could you please explain to me what my club selection has to do with whether the rules of the game are out of balance and need adjustment?
-
Examine the nature of the new courses being built and ask yourself whether they are as conducive to the style of game you profess to play as are the more classic courses. They are not and the change in the game at the highest level which is directly related to equipment is a principal cause.
Shel, I am not sure I follow your point. I assume you agree that modern courses like Sand Hills, Friar's Head, Tobacco Road, Pacific Dunes, Cuscowilla and many more are fine courses that encourage the 'style of game' you allude to. So in these many cases, the 'change in the game at the highest level' has not mattered--is your worry therefore more with the currect crop of architects and what they are creating and not with the equipment?
-
Andy, nice point regarding the outstanding new courses. Thank goodness that we have the likes of Coore & Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, Silva, Mungeam and the other young architects who respect the traditional values of the game and translate those values into great golf courses (my apologies for an incomplete list). We should also be grateful to the limited number of owner/developers who select these individuals over other more commercial names. But if you take a look at the course openings you will conclude that the vast majority select architects with a different agenda. The ads for most of the new resorts, housing developments, and or high end courses stress theie "championship" caliber. Today that usually means long, water strewn, tree lined with fast greens. Join me at a seminar for greens chairmen or club Presidents and find out the pressure from memberships to lengthen and toughen up their courses so that they will be "up to date." That is the reality.
-
Shel
It isn't my intention to be superior. I am far from superior in every aspect of my life.
I liken your argument to the guy who watched an ad and bought the product. I may not like the idea that this guy bought a product I think is inferior, but that doesn't make it wrong. If the tours are acting as advertisements for certain types of courses it is up to the consumer to sift through the information and make a decision.
My argument doesn't hinge on competition so what Pat M says is largely irrelevant. I have no desire to control how others perceive or play the game. If little Suzy Whaley or whatever her name is can carry a 300 yard bunker I say fantastic. The kid has obviously got talent. I am talking from the perspective of the punter. The guy who makes the game of golf viable from an economic perspective.
I believe when enough people think that distance is a problem and ACT on their beliefs, then there is a chance for effective change (not some poxy rollback that manufacturers will find a way around in 5 years). I think of it as changing the culture of the game much like the effort to change the culture of drinking and driving. Having the USGA come down with some ruling just means that manufacturers will seek other ways to make their equipment better. That is what what equipment companies do and they are much better at research than the USGA are.
If golfers (not just the annointed few) are convinced that distance is a problem, then we are starting to get somewhere. Relying on the USGA and the PGA to dig the trenches ain't gonna get the job done. It is going to take a concerted effort from a grassroots organization(s) (that probably doesn't even exist yet) to persuade golfers that distance is bad because of A, B & C.
Dave M
When you play with hicks does it solve the problem for you personally? If it does, then I would say a positive start toward solving distance is underway. However, if you are gonna just pull out the hicks for a laugh once in a while, what is the point other than just a laugh?
Ciao
Sean
-
Dave M
When you play with hicks does it solve the problem for you personally? If it does, then I would say a positive start toward solving distance is underway. However, if you are gonna just pull out the hicks for a laugh once in a while, what is the point other than just a laugh?
Ciao
Sean
Does it solve the problem for me personally? No, because the problem isnt about me, personally. The problem is with the overall game and the architecture. So my choice of equipment has nothing to do with it.
The point of my playing with hickories some of the time has no other point than because of my own interest and enjoyment. So I guess you could say there is no other point than "just for a laugh."
You treat mass protest and grassroots movement as the only viable means for change, and this is just not the case. We have a body in place that is charged with acting for "the good of the game." They are supposed to be leaders, and true leaders can do what is right and then use their position to convince the rest of us that what they have done is the right thing. That is what needs to happen. If we wait for your mass movement it will be much too late.
-
I got the numbers from an old magazine article where, if I recall correctly, they were recording actual driving distances of a handful of top players. The 1923 date is mistaken-- it should be 1918. So in the 75 years after 1918, distance increased about 32 yards. I used 1918 because it seemed to me to be one of the only sources for driving distance and one that struck me as probably reliable.
I used 1993 because this seems to be approximately where things really took off.
However you look at it, the jump in the past decade or so has been absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented-- at least since 1918.
Dave, interesting. Do you happen to have a link to that article, or at least a pointer to where I could find it?
Do you happen to know if this jump in distance is just for the best of the best, or if it has translated proportionally for all golfers?
I wonder if most people, ordinary golfers, are appreciably longer today than they were in 1993?
-
Dave
Successive generations of golfers have been waiting for 100 years for the USGA and/or the R&A to act in any decisive manner. Good thing time is eternal eh?
I do think it is important to make personal changes if you personally want more satisfaction from the game. With many great movements, it started with a few people who wouldn't back down.
Ciao
Sean
-
Dave, you said:
"They are supposed to be leaders, and true leaders can do what is right and then use their position to convince the rest of us that what they have done is the right thing.."
I'm sorry, but TRUE leaders should listen to the majority and the majority will convince THEM that they are doing is the right thing.
There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone from playing with a ball, and equipment from any era they choose. And there is really nothing to stop the PGA from setting their own equipment standards for THEIR tour.
However, I resent, and I'm sure I'm not alone, a handful of self appointed saviors of "the game", who couldn't drive a golf ball 225 yards with a 40mph tailwind, claiming there's a "distance" problem and we should have acted on it yesterday.
-
But if you take a look at the course openings you will conclude that the vast majority select architects with a different agenda. The ads for most of the new resorts, housing developments, and or high end courses stress theie "championship" caliber. Today that usually means long, water strewn, tree lined with fast greens. Join me at a seminar for greens chairmen or club Presidents and find out the pressure from memberships to lengthen and toughen up their courses so that they will be "up to date." That is the reality.
Shel, I will of course defer to you on what goes on with greens committees. I have no experience whatsoever with that. What you describe sounds like there is a need for education for the greens committes at classic courses?
It also reminds of the Augusta syndrom I have seen discussed here--courses trying to keep up with the conditioning they see during the Masters. Unfortunate. And in the end, do the greens committees you are referring to end up with courses the members enjoy more, or less?
I could not agree more re new resorts/housing develoments. The negative aspects you describe could also, though, have been applied to countless courses built in the 1950s and 1960s I would think, and that was before the 1993 distance explosion that Dave M discussed.
We look at the C&C, Doak, Hanse, Silva et al courses built today, and we perceive that they are the minority and that all the rest have lost their way. I would guess that has always been the state of things, though. For all the classics built in the 1910s-1930s, there were countless other courses built that we would describe as lacking in architectural merit. All we see looking back are the Pine Valleys, the Merions and the Oakmonts, but surely the majority of courses built then were ordinary at best.
-
The argument that one can choose his equipment to suit his preferences cuts both ways. If the USGA limits the ball and there is a demand for the suddenly illegal longer ball, manufacturers will find a way to meet the market. Those who want to play non conforming balls and obtain the thrill of hitting a ball 250 instead of 230 or 280 instead of 250 or whatever, can do so. Even now one can obtain nonconforming balls that exceed the current legislative limit. So the issue relating to one's personal prefernce is a red herring. The only difference will be that the existing classic courses will once again provide a fair challenge to the best players. Those wishing to emulate those players will use conforming equipment and suffer some loss of distance, although the data suggests it will be both absolutely and proportionall less than those with higher swing speeds. Those who believe professional tournaments set the standard for golf courses will now have more reasonable length courses as examples thus allowing for lower acquisition and maintenance costs. The pros will still be longer and better than the rest of us. A long drive will still feel like a long drive. If you don't care about competition as you profess, then you won't care if you use nonconforming equipment. As Dave Moriarty stated, this argument is not about anyone's individual game, its about the health of the game and the responsibilities of the rulesmakers.
-
I'm sorry, but TRUE leaders should listen to the majority and the majority will convince THEM that they are doing is the right thing.
I admire your democratic sensibilities, but think they are misplaced here. The "majority of golfers" arent really in a very good position to decide what if anything to do about this distance problem. They dont have have the technical expertise, they dont have a complete set of information, they dont have a clear overview of the history or the impact on the architecture. They are much too caught up in their own lives and own games to intelligently decide such issues.
Golfers rely on bodies such as the USGA to make the rules and do what is best for the game. They always have and likely always will. Having a majority of golfers decide the COR for clubs would be pretty silly, dont you think?
There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone from playing with a ball, and equipment from any era they choose. And there is really nothing to stop the PGA from setting their own equipment standards for THEIR tour.
That is true. And their is nothing stopping you from reacting to limits by playing non-conforming "cheater" equipment. In fact there is non-conforming stuff available now, and you are free to play it. No one is forcing you to be part of the USGA or to play by their rules. If they make rules you dont like, then don't follow them.
However, I resent, and I'm sure I'm not alone, a handful of self appointed saviors of "the game", who couldn't drive a golf ball 225 yards with a 40mph tailwind, claiming there's a "distance" problem and we should have acted on it yesterday.
I am not sure why you feel resentment about this issue or feel the need to belittle the abilities of those who disagree with you. This has nothing to do with any particular individual's game, hack or pro. It does have to do with keeping the great venues of golf relevant, keeping a workable balance between the relative advantages of power versus other golf skills, and keeping golf affordable and accessible.
You may have no concern with these things whatsoever, but some of us do care about them and, believe it or not, our concern goes beyond our own game.
-
How would it fare? Do you mean, how would the players do in relation to par? I think they would go very low, US Open record low.
But, well, why does that matter? The fact that Tiger can destroy a course has no bearing on whether it is a fun course for me to play or its members to play.
It matters because technology has allowed the golfer to IGNORE the architecture he was meant to interface with.
This is the point that you and everyone else on the distance bandwagon constatntly miss.
The architecture no longer has meaning[/color]
But all of that is besides the point--I hit a shorter club into 18 than Bobby Jones did, and the course was an enjoyable and challenging one for me anyway.
I would have to see your round in order to comment on that.[/color]
The two SHOULDN'T BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
But, high tech has made them so.
But they shouldn't be, not at all. You and your friends have chosen so.
NO, We haven't.
When I play in a tournament I"m not going there to waste my time or frustrate myself, I'm going there to compete on an equal footing. The same applies when playing for money, score or ego.[/color]
Look at it this way---you want to ensure that the architecture remains relevant, that the golfers are forced to engage with what the architect created. You believe (and I agree) that the game is more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting that way (your ode to 'the joys of hitting it shorter' spoke well to this). Now, do your playing partners agree or disagree with you?
Some do, some don't.[/color]
If they disagree with you, if they prefer to be able to blast past the bunker echelon on the Bottle Hole, then what does that tell you?
It tells me nothing other than that they've made a choice.[/color]
Conversely, if they agree with you, and they find the game more enjoyable and thrilling and fun and interesting when they need to engage with the echelon, then why are all of you playing with clubs that enable you to hit past it?
Because there isn't universal agreement.
Because you can't find Blue Max Maxfli's and because I play with a great number of people with diverse perspectives.
And, because I compete with other foursomes, twosomes and singles on a regular basis, for a few quid.
You're living in a DREAM WORLD with respect to isolating and limiting your game to only those people in complete agreement with your philosophy.
But, if you want to continue to engage in mental masturbation, be my guest.[/color]
C'mon Pat, if the game is more fun/thrilling/etc without the distance gain of the last few years that you are worried about, and your friends agree with you, then it would be a simple issue. If nothing else, just use your 3 wood.
I don't like the ball flight on my 3-wood.
And, why do you assume my friends agree ?
And, even if they did, how would we compete with the other foursomes that don't agree with us ?
You're forgetting the greatest influence on distance, the BALL.
Where do you suggest we obtain balls circa 1964 ?[/color]
The problem is, do your playing partners want to hand over their newest driver?
But why would your playing partners not want to use older equipment, if the game is more fun and interesting with it?
You'd have to ask them.[/color]
PS And yes, I would agree with you that if you are playing in a tournament it would not make sense to use older equipment. But what percentage of rounds of golf played are tournament rounds? I would posit it is a small number.
I would say that almost every round is for score, ego, money or tournament play.[/color]
I think it is a little unfair to conflate a national tournament with the vast majority of rounds of golf, just as it is unfair to comment on a shot Tiger or JB Holmes makes and treat it as something that mere mortals do.
I cited just one tournament.
I play competitively, in tournaments or otherwise, almost constantly. Why would I want to cede an inherent advantage to my adversary ?
Do you think that the golf world doesn't play for score, money, ego or in tournaments most of the time ?[/color]
Pat, why do you play with a 10 year old driver when there are better drivers made today?
For the same reason I'm playing with 1985 irons, I tend to resist change.[/color]
-
Pat, I guess I am not sure what your motivations are for playing. You claim now that they are: score, ego, money and tournaments.
Yet, 2 weeks ago, you talked at length about the joy of playing, of interfacing with the architecture.
If score, ego and money are your motivations as you claim, then really, what difference does it make if you "ignore the architecture"? As long as you win, your ego gets stroked and your wallet swells (talk about mental masturbation!). Heck, you should be happy! By your own words, a few quid is more important to you then the architecture and the joy you spoke of 2 weeks ago.
I suspect you have a number of friends who agree with, no? If so, do you ever all go play and compete with older equipment, garnering the best of both worlds? If not, I have to wonder why
his is the point that you and everyone else on the distance bandwagon constatntly miss.
Actually, I am not on that bandwagon. I am not sure where I stand yet. But I am not at all swayed by the positions I have heard hear yet. I can only go by what my own lying eyes tell me, and that is I have not gotten appreciably longer in the last 10 years, and neither have my friends.
Though I have a hard time grasping what I see the big boys doing on tour.
Pat, OT to this, but how long is it to carry it past the bunker echelon on the Bottle?
-
Ah yes, the benevolent dictator that knows what is best.
"The "majority of golfers" arent really in a very good position to decide what if anything to do about this distance problem."
The "majority of golfers" pay my way....and they are a lot smarter than you're giving them credit for being.
-
I'm sorry, but TRUE leaders should listen to the majority and the majority will convince THEM that they are doing is the right thing.
I admire your democratic sensibilities, but think they are misplaced here. The "majority of golfers" arent really in a very good position to decide what if anything to do about this distance problem. They dont have have the technical expertise, they dont have a complete set of information, they dont have a clear overview of the history or the impact on the architecture. They are much too caught up in their own lives and own games to intelligently decide such issues.
Dave
I find this statement astonishing. I immediately become suspicious of people who claim they know what is best for me. Sort of like those guys on gc comms. who make up rules which conveniently fit their view of the world and how it should be.
Lets say the USGA in a whirlwind of activity gets a 10% reduction on distance. This effectively is a short term cap on how far the ball will go. Equipment companies will find ways around these caps, unless of course someone says "the ball is not allowed to carry more than a certain distance". I hope that day never comes.
Lets give the benefit of the doubt and the USGA gets the rollback and a few further rollbacks which brings us back to 1980 distances or whatever distance people think was great and good for the game. What makes you think these boneheads at country clubs are going to stop messing around with THEIR courses? These country club types have been changing their courses practically since the day they were built. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. It doesn't matter because every successive comm. that comes in wants to leave a legacy and holding status quo isn't particularly recognized as a legacy.
Having the USGA declare some miraculous rollback is not going to solve the problem. I will say it again, only golfers can solve the problem and that starts with individual behaviour.
Ciao
Sean
-
Ah yes, the benevolent dictator that knows what is best.
Did I say that the USGA should be a benevolent dictator who knows what is best? I did not. The USGA has no general enforcement power. If they make changes that are too out of line with the golfing public then golfers will go their own way and the USGA will lose all relevance. There is your democracy in action for you. [Some would say that their inaction has taken them nearly to irrelevancy as it is.] In the mean time, I want a USGA that is studying the game and making educated decisions, not one that makes decisions based on fleeting popular opinion. They have been in charge of the rules of golf for over 100 years, and I dont ever recall them basing their decisions on some sort of a general vote. After all, they are supposed to be leaders, not followers.
But I am curious . . . Just how far do you take your notions of democracy in golf?
-- Do you let the golfers decide when, where, and how much to fertilize?
--Do you let them make their own decisions about when the greens are too frozen in the winter for play?
--How about frost delays? Do you let the morning golfers vote on frost delays?
--Do the golfers vote on when you run your sprinklers or how low you cut your greens?
I am sure your golfers are smart, after all you work in a college town. Yet somehow I think you make all these decisions based on your expertise, rather than by opinion poll.
-
Dave
I find this statement astonishing. I immediately become suspicious of people who claim they know what is best for me. Sort of like those guys on gc comms. who make up rules which conveniently fit their view of the world and how it should be.
If you find that statement astonishing, I've got more for you. The USGA and the R&A have been making the rules and placing limits on the equipmentfor quite a while now, without following popular vote. So if you play by the rules then indeed someone else has decided what is best for you. This isnt government, it is a game.
Equipment companies will find ways around these caps, unless of course someone says "the ball is not allowed to carry more than a certain distance". I hope that day never comes.
More shocking news . . . the rules already say such a thing. The USGA and R&A just failed to react when equipment manufacturers started circumventing the spirit of the rule.
If they so chose, the USGA could make effective rules to control technology. It has happened in many if not most sports.
What makes you think these boneheads at country clubs are going to stop messing around with THEIR courses? These country club types have been changing their courses practically since the day they were built. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. It doesn't matter because every successive comm. that comes in wants to leave a legacy and holding status quo isn't particularly recognized as a legacy.
One cannot control this, but the "boneheads" will lose a big incentive to make some of the changes they make, and new course boneheads will have much less reason to design and build the way they do.
-
Pat, I guess I am not sure what your motivations are for playing. You claim now that they are: score, ego, money and tournaments.
Yet, 2 weeks ago, you talked at length about the joy of playing, of interfacing with the architecture.
Since when are the above two statements mutually exclusive ?
If I bet you that I can get a ball from one end of one football field, into a 4 1/4 inch cup at the other end of a football field, five fields removed, in fewer strokes than you, that produces an inherent challenge and a natural competition, with or without money, with or without trophies.
Or, if I try, over and over again, to get the ball from point A to point B in the fewest strokes possible, that's an inherent challenge and an internal competition, ergo, ego.
If someone makes the inherent challenge more interesting by inserting or creating features on that field to thwart my efforts, then it's my duty to navigate those features as best I can in order to get from Point A to Point B in the fewest strokes possibe.
Hence, interfacing with the architecture, while at the same time trying to achieve the goal of going from Point A to Point B in the fewest strokes possible, are in perfect harmony with one another.
And, if you tell me that shooting the lowest possible score on every hole, and collectively, isn't your goal, then you're being disengenuous.[/color]
If score, ego and money are your motivations as you claim, then really, what difference does it make if you "ignore the architecture"?
Because it's the ARCHITECTURE that ENHANCES the inherent challenge[/COLOR]
As long as you win, your ego gets stroked and your wallet swells (talk about mental masturbation!). Heck, you should be happy! By your own words, a few quid is more important to you then the architecture and the joy you spoke of 2 weeks ago.
I NEVER said "more important" those are your words.
A critical part of golf, which you may not be aware of is called, "course management"
It's how a player strategizes and interfaces with the architecture in order to produce the lowest score prudently possible.[/color]
I suspect you have a number of friends who agree with, no?
Only Ran Morrissett.[/color]
If so, do you ever all go play and compete with older equipment, garnering the best of both worlds?
NO.[/color]
If not, I have to wonder why
For the same reason that I don't sleep with old girlfriends.[/color]
this is the point that you and everyone else on the distance bandwagon constatntly miss.
Actually, I am not on that bandwagon. I am not sure where I stand yet. But I am not at all swayed by the positions I have heard hear yet. I can only go by what my own lying eyes tell me, and that is I have not gotten appreciably longer in the last 10 years, and neither have my friends.
The fact that you haven't gotten shorter, despite aging ten years is just as telling.[/color]
Pat, OT to this, but how long is it to carry it past the bunker echelon on the Bottle?
There are conflicting answers.
I believe the hole was recently remeasured and it measured far shorter than the yardage that appeared on the scorecard, which was 424 from the back tee. I forget the remeasured distance, but, I believe it's close to 400 yards.
In addition, Golfplans yardage book appears to reinforce my conflicting measurements theory.
Their book shows the carry of the center string bunkers at 230-5 yards, yet, the distance from the last center string bunker to the center of the green is 155 yards, which would mean, on a 424 yard hole, that the carry would be 269 yards.
My guess is, to carry it a yard past the last center string bunker complex, is about 235 yards, but, it's slightly uphill, and usually into a prevailing wind. In addition, the air tends to be heavy.
One of my objectives on my next trip to NGLA is to measure the distance from the back of the current back tee, and to revisit the wisdom of moving the 7th tee back to a berm that's about 20 or so yards behind the current tee.[/color]
-
"Quote:
Equipment companies will find ways around these caps, unless of course someone says "the ball is not allowed to carry more than a certain distance". I hope that day never comes.
"More shocking news . . . the rules already say such a thing. The USGA and R&A just failed to react when equipment manufacturers started circumventing the spirit of the rule."
David:
That is not exactly the case. The old Overall Distance Standard had a swing speed protocol of 109mph to test for ball conformance and the new Overall Distance Standard has a swing speed protocol of 122mph to test for ball conformance. Both ODSs at their respective swing speed protocols can be translated into an actual distance limit which essentially is the ball conformance pass/fail line.
This does not mean that the USGA Tech Center thought that noone swung faster than 109mph under the old ODS and it does not mean they think noone swings faster than 122mph under the new ODS. In other words the ODS does not determine some distance limit (carry or otherwise) that noone can hit a ball beyond without that ball being deemed non-conforming. So there really is not such a thing that says a ball is not allowed to carry (or go) more than a certain distance except in the USGA's ODS ball conformance test.
For instance, that you man from Nebraskaa, Long John Hurley, was recorded at the US Amateur as having a ball speed of 193mph which was the highest ball speed they've ever seen in person. That ball speed translates to a swing speed of app. 133mph, and there is nothing either illegal or circumventing of the spirit of the USGA/R&A I&B rules about it.
-
Tom, I realize this but also suspect that when the USGA set the distance limit for 109 that they thought this would also act as a relative control on swing speeds above 109. The USGA knew the ball would go incrimentally further as the speed increased, but the manufacturers came up with balls that gave explosive benefits at above 109. I dont think that the USGA anticipated this.
Also, when the USGA set the limit at 109, I do not think that they anticipated new equipment which would remain stable and consistently produce acceptable results at the kinds of swingspeeds we are seeing today.
-
Here are some measurements for the eighth hole at the National Golf Links of America, taken from the middle of the tee box. Add fourteen yards for distances from the very back of the tee box.
It seems to me that there are plenty of bunkers here to challenge every sort of golfer. Nice hole!
(http://www.summersoccer.com/golf/images/nationallinks/bottle.jpg)
-
Doug, first of all I would STILL have to be able to EXECUTE. You do not shot 66 solely because of equipment.
The game still requires the ability to putt and chip. The game still requires a consistant, solid swing.
I get the impression that 99% of the "anti-new technology" people think everyone hits the ball 350 yards and straight as an arrow when they pick up a Nike golf ball and the SQ driver.
Do you seriously think that you and I (and I have no idea how good a golfer you are) could play Pine Valley, Merion, AGNC, or any other classic course and render it obsolete? I doubt it.
Craig [and Brent]
First of all, my example to do with equipment that would let you shoot 66 was a hypothetical. I'm not suggesting such a thing is possible. It was just a response to you saying that hitting it further and straighter is fun, and by extension that technology improvements are good. So would technology that let you score lower (which is really the end goal of competitive golf) also be a good thing to you? I mean, it'd be fun to shoot 66, right, but would shooting 66 mean anything if the skill required wasn't anything like what it is today?
Think about it this way. You say you still have to EXECUTE, that's fine. Well, 25 years ago hitting a persimmon driver into a 25 mph wind with whatever ball available then you cared to play, the requirements on EXECUTION were far higher than they are today with a modern driver and modern ball in the exact same conditions. Hopefully you agree with that (if not, don't bother reading further, because there's no hope for you :)) So unquestionably, the need for EXECUTION has been reduced, in at least this one aspect of the game.
Now I'm not suggesting that any possible technology, even if the USGA eliminated all rules about equipment design, could make me shoot 66 on PV with my game, that's way too much to ask for a mid single digit handicap. But if, hypothetically, that was possible, do you think it would be a good thing?
Now if Tiger was then shooting 55 with the same equipment, he'd still be much better than me, so is improved technology reducing the need to EXECUTE okay with you if it reduces the skill requirement for everyone by an equal amount? What if it only helped Tiger get down to 62, so that if I caught him on a good day for me and a bad day for him, I could beat him? Surely every golfer in the world would have to agree that would be an intolerable situation that would truly be the ruination of the game!
I'm stunned at Brent Hutto's response to my earlier post, and I'm hoping I've misread it. Otherwise I think there's no hope for the poor guy, and he certainly must have missed the irony in the Twilight Zone plot summary I posted after it ;)
-
So many assertions based on what data?
Pat,
"The fact that you haven't gotten shorter, despite aging ten years"
Do you have data to support the deterioration of distance by each year of aging, absent of technology change? Is it linear degradation from some peak point? Or exponential?
Dave,
"the manufacturers came up with balls that gave explosive benefits at above 109"
Can you point me to some data that relates carry distance to ball speed to clubhead speed up to and above 109? Does it get increasingly better as you go higher? Is going from 130 to 135 better than 120 to 125? Where's the data?
-
"Tom, I realize this but also suspect that when the USGA set the distance limit for 109 that they thought this would also act as a relative control on swing speeds above 109."
David:
I don't know what you mean when you say the USGA thought 109mph would also act as a relative control on swing speeds above 109.
I've had quite a lot of discussions on the ODS and ball conformance testing with the USGA Tech Center and Frank Thomas in the last few years and I've never heard any of them say anything like that. 109mph was basically just a swing speed they picked to test for the conformance of golf balls. Technically it could have been almost anything---ex 92mph or 122mph. They simply needed a swing speed protocol or baseline to plug their five ball limitation (ball rules and regs) factors into to test for ball conformance. I actually asked Frank Thomas why he picked 109mph instead of something else when they set up the ODS many years ago. He said because it seemed high enough and while he realized some golfers might swing faster than that he felt the amount of them was not significant. In 1976 he was probably right about that. Nevertheless that number was merely a factor picked as a baseline for “pass/fail” determination on golf ball conformance. Again, it could’ve been almost anything if one assumes a straight-line distance effect as MPH increases and decreases from that number.
"The USGA knew the ball would go incrimentally further as the speed increased, but the manufacturers came up with balls that gave explosive benefits at above 109. I dont think that the USGA anticipated this."
Actually, I doubt the USGA or anyone else knew the ball would go incrementally further as the swing speed increased. Everyone may've assumed that back then but I do not believe anyone, manufacturers or the USGA Tech Center ever tested to determine if that was true or not.
In my opinion, the first time the USGA may've begun to suspect an increase in swing speed produced something other than a relative percentage increase in distance is when they saw Davis Love at the Walker Cup in 1985. My recollection is they thought to actually test him in this vein to try to see if there was some anomaly to straight-line distance increase but for whatever reason that didn't happen with Love.
You mention 'explosive benefits above 109mph'. I know what you're implying and there are some who suspect that but I do not believe that has been technically proven by anyone, manufacturers, USGA Tech Center or anyone else.
There're a number of factors in the last 15-20 years that may make that appear to be the case but I don't believe anything like that has been technically proven. But if one wants to find out whether that's true of false I could always just ask the Tech Center. Known realities in physics and performance from previous testing they seem willing to talk about. What they tend not to want to discuss is performance speculation they have not been able to test for or technically determine.
You mention the USGA did not anticipate this. There are a few things that they now believe contributed to this distance increase that going back perhaps 15-20 years they did not anticipate. Those things are basically the effects of "spring like effect" (an increase in COR), the creation of a golf ball that had a combination of the distance characteristics of the two-piece hard ball and the soft feel of the old three-piece soft ball, and the creation of so-called "optimization" testing.
I have never seen any statistical data on it (because it may not exist) but the thinking is the old high spinning three piece soft balls that almost every good player in the world used may not have been that close to the ODS "pass/fail" ball conformance line as were the two-piece hard balls (that almost no good and long players ever used).
One of the reasons neither the USGA Tech Center, nor the manufacturers nor anyone else may have anticipated these things is because no one can look into the future and determine exact performance characteristics without first creating a test mechanism, a test procedure and then actually testing for something relating to ball (or club) performance
This entire subject of club and particularly ball performance to people like us is merely about distance results---sometimes speculative and sometimes reliable statistical data.
The USGA doesn't exactly look at it just that way. To them this subject is all about testing and the tests they use and the results and data they determine from that testing. In the world of I&B regulation this must come first. Some people seem to overlook this necessary fact or just aren’t aware of it. The thing most of us never think about when it comes to the USGA Tech Center is to determine performance results either at the present time or perhaps in the future they have to actually design and make test mechanisms and test procedures themselves. There is no place they can buy these test mechanisms and test procedures. To them all of this is about testing and better testing. If one goes to the USGA Tech Center one can see a virtual junk yard of old and obsolete test mechanisms in a storeroom.
If the test mechanisms and procedures are not adequate to test some new wrinkle that comes down the R& D pipeline at them they have to create it, otherwise they can’t make an accurate determination of conformance and consequently can’t very well deem something non-conforming.
Their ability to monitor and regulate I&B is and has been only as good as their tests, and in the past they’ve had to play catch-up because things come at them that no one understands the performance reasons for very well because they have not been able to test for them.
And so this is why in 2002 the USGA allocated app $10 million to test for practically ever performance characteristic of a golf ball anyone could think of. And this is why Jim Vernon mentioned at the USGA annual meeting last week in his “Equipment Standards” report that the USGA may now know more about ball performance and potential ball performance than anyone, including the manufacturers. The USGA is apparently nearing the end of that $10 million ball performance study. This is their way of staying up with what might come down the R&D pipeline at them so they can better anticipate what the distance effects will be in the future.
Most of us on here seem to just look at some of these things in retrospect and then blame the USGA for not anticipating something. Unfortunately, in their world of I&B testing they don't have that luxury.
-
So many assertions based on what data?
Pat,
"The fact that you haven't gotten shorter, despite aging ten years"
Do you have data to support the deterioration of distance by each year of aging, absent of technology change?
YES
I watched my Father and his generation, including some exceptional players, year after year, for 30 years, as their distance eroded.
Until, the metal wood and the Pinnacle ball came on the scene. Then there was an immediate jump, a recapturing of some of their lost distance.
Now let me think, was that the same year they all got their
B-12 shots, or was that the year El Nino swept in from the west, or both ? [/color]
Is it linear degradation from some peak point? Or exponential?
It varies, but, the trend is undeniable.
For some it's linear, for others it's more sporadic.
But, relentlessly, the trend continues in but one direction.
When I see amateurs, in their mid 50's and 60's hitting the ball farther then Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime, it should tell you something, unless of course, you're in denial.[/color]
-
Here are some measurements for the eighth hole at the National Golf Links of America, taken from the middle of the tee box. Add fourteen yards for distances from the very back of the tee box.
How were the measurements arrived at ?[/color]
It seems to me that there are plenty of bunkers here to challenge every sort of golfer.
Not when Tiger Woods and others merely take an iron and place the ball between the centerline bunker complex and the Principal's Nose bunker complex and hit a sand wedge to the green.[/color]
Nice hole!
NO, it's a great hole.
One that will benefit from about 20 or so more yards at the tee.
It's unfortunate that photos don't always capture the topography, there's a nice cant to the fairway, from high left to low right, and a general uphill nature to the centerline bunker complex area.[/color]
(http://www.summersoccer.com/golf/images/nationallinks/bottle.jpg)
-
Dave
quote]What makes you think these boneheads at country clubs are going to stop messing around with THEIR courses? These country club types have been changing their courses practically since the day they were built. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. It doesn't matter because every successive comm. that comes in wants to leave a legacy and holding status quo isn't particularly recognized as a legacy.
One cannot control this, but the "boneheads" will lose a big incentive to make some of the changes they make, and new course boneheads will have much less reason to design and build the way they do.
Dave
There you have it. The USGA, the tours nor the punter can be blamed for clubs altering their classic courses. The main reason courses get altered is because members have the power to do so. When people have power they tend to use it. Distance is not to be blamed either. It is the memberships' reaction to distance which has altered courses.
As for new courses, there is a guy paying the bills and I suspect that guy will try and build what he perceives the public want or what he can convince the public to find desirable. The newest and best are the main criteria in the world of advertising. True, yardage is seen as one of the markers of newest and best, but there are other factors as well.
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean,
You're missing the point.
What's the motivation behind the members exercising their power to do so ?
-
If not, I have to wonder why
For the same reason that I don't sleep with old girlfriends.
Not sure I follow. Either you and your friends don't play golf in a way you enjoy because:
1. you prefer sleeping with young girlfriends, or
2. because your wife might get angry?
Actually, I am not on that bandwagon. I am not sure where I stand yet. But I am not at all swayed by the positions I have heard hear yet. I can only go by what my own lying eyes tell me, and that is I have not gotten appreciably longer in the last 10 years, and neither have my friends.
The fact that you haven't gotten shorter, despite aging ten years is just as telling.
Perhaps. I have gone from 30 to 40 in those years, and while I play far less I am not sure I would have expected to lose much distance in those years.
It seems to me that there are plenty of bunkers here to challenge every sort of golfer.
Not when Tiger Woods and others merely take an iron and place the ball between the centerline bunker complex and the Principal's Nose bunker complex and hit a sand wedge to the green.
This kinda gets to the heart of things a bit. From what you (and now Michael) have described, it takes a 250 yard drive, up the hill and into the prevailing wind just to barely clear the last bunker in the echelon. Now, maybe Tiger can hit an iron that far, but he's among the longest players on tour. And he was long 10 years ago as well, so I don't believe we can say its only 2006 equipment that enables him to hit it far.
So I again am left to wonder how this really effects the members, and why what one of the longest players on Tour is capable of potentially doing should any impact on the huge preponderance of members who happen not to hit the ball as well or as long as Woods.
Were the longest members not able to hit past that bunker 10 years ago, and now they can do so with ease?
I guess I am not really clear where the line is.
-
Here are some measurements for the eighth hole at the National Golf Links of America, taken from the middle of the tee box. Add fourteen yards for distances from the very back of the tee box.
Michael, if you don't mind my asking, how'd you do that with the picture and the precise measurements?
-
Michael, if you don't mind my asking, how'd you do that with the picture and the precise measurements?
The photo and the measurements are courtesy of the State of New York.
I am rolling out some yardage books this spring with this very look and feel. In the very near future my website will be up will all the details.
I look forward to constructive criticism from the members of this site.
-
I've had quite a lot of discussions on the ODS and ball conformance testing with the USGA Tech Center and Frank Thomas in the last few years and I've never heard any of them say anything like that. 109mph was basically just a swing speed they picked to test for the conformance of golf balls. Technically it could have been almost anything---ex 92mph or 122mph. They simply needed a swing speed protocol or baseline to plug their five ball limitation (ball rules and regs) factors into to test for ball conformance. I actually asked Frank Thomas why he picked 109mph instead of something else when they set up the ODS many years ago. He said because it seemed high enough and while he realized some golfers might swing faster than that he felt the amount of them was not significant. In 1976 he was probably right about that. Nevertheless that number was merely a factor picked as a baseline for “pass/fail” determination on golf ball conformance. Again, it could’ve been almost anything if one assumes a straight-line distance effect as MPH increases and decreases from that number.
Tom,
I share your hope that the USGA Tech folks will get it right in the future. Heck, I hope they figure it out in the next two or three years which to their thinking is probably ridiculously soon. But for decades they indulged themselves in an unexamined assumption that to anyone who understands measurement is just huge. Yes, it is simple to just pick a more or less arbitrary single calibration point. And yes if golf ball construction doesn't undergo any major changes that will serve to limit distance for all golfers. And yes that worked for years and years.
But then "all of a sudden" (and it wasn't really that sudden in modern technology terms, taking a decade or more) that assumption didn't hold. It became almost laughably easy to design golf balls that met the ODS (as defined by its testing protocol) while rewarding high clubhead speeds and modern driver with significant distance gains. And so far the USGA has done nothing beyond changing their arbitrary single calibration point to a slightly higher arbitrary single calibration point and then studying the problem to death for several more years.
Surely this makes it clear why many of us just plain old don't believe them when they say they'll have the problem under control Real Soon Now. Not to say that Frank Thomas and the others weren't bright, industrious fellows. I'm sure they were and are. But for whatever political or institutional or just plain crazy reasons these bright fellows have acted resolutely clueless for more than a decade. Some sort of effective action will have to be demonstrated before I personally believe that they are capable of regulating the distance of the ball.
I sympathize completely with the bind they've put themselves in. In today's legal, political and cultural climate I don't really think they have a prayer in hell of setting a standard that makes any current ball non-conforming. So for starters they have to concede every overstepping of the intent of the ball rules that has been done in the past. Every year they delay just results in more distance being built into golf balls that will ultimately have to be grandfathered in. My guess is they intend to create de facto bifurcation by suggesting some sort of "local rule" or equivalent for use in high-level competition and professional tournaments specifying a high spin golf ball. Then at the same time they'll implement a more rational testing protocol to try and cap overall distance at the "current" (which will end up being c. 2008 or whatever) levels. But maybe they have a much better trick up their sleeve, we'll see. One day.
-
I'm stunned at Brent Hutto's response to my earlier post, and I'm hoping I've misread it. Otherwise I think there's no hope for the poor guy, and he certainly must have missed the irony in the Twilight Zone plot summary I posted after it ;)
I say, I say, son...I must be built too low to the ground...that one went right over my haid...
-
"I sympathize completely with the bind they've put themselves in. In today's legal, political and cultural climate I don't really think they have a prayer in hell of setting a standard that makes any current ball non-conforming. So for starters they have to concede every overstepping of the intent of the ball rules that has been done in the past."
Brent:
Personally, I don't think you have a very good grasp of either why what happened with distance did happen or what the USGA/R&A may do about it if they institute or legislate new I&B rules and regs for MOI, spin generation, or ball distance performance which they are now talking about perhaps doing.
For instance, they have asked the manufacturers to submit samples of a prototype ball that will travel either 15 or 25 yards less far. Less far than what? Probably less far off the present ODS test procedure.
If they do adopt that performance with new ball rules and regs of course that will render almost any ball on the market and in use today as non-conforming.
So how do they bring such a new ball into use and take the old non-conforming balls out of use? The same way they brought the big ball in and took the old small ball out, or the same way they took out the old Eye2 production or the same way they plan to take .086 COR drivers out of use.
Furthermore, it really wasn't Thomas and the Tech Center that missed the boat and didn't anticipate why this distance spike happened it was basically the boards of the USGA and the R&A who refused to vote for many of the things Thomas and the Tech Center recommended way back when such as capping COR at the COR of the face of a persimmon driver (.078 or .079), or legislating in some way against this new age ball or Thomas's design and creation of the USGA "optimization" test which the USGA initially touted to great fanfare and eventually ended up dropping just about the same time they dropped Thomas too. Those recommendations are part of the record.
If you ask me, what happened with Thomas was a basic case of killing the messanger. If you don't know it it really isn't the Tech Center that makes I&B policy---although it is them who recommend what that policy should be. The ones who actually make policy is the app 30-35 members of the Boards of the R&A and USGA. If they decide not to adopt the recommendations of a guy like Thomas and the USGA Tech Center then obviously things can go awry as they did.
Why didn't they vote to adopt entirely what he and the Tech Center were recommending back then? It's pretty obvious, isn't it, they were apparently more inclined to listen to the lawyers who probably convinced them the risk of being sued was too great.
But again, just because things played out as they did in the last 10-15 years does not mean they have to stick with these distances. If that were true then why do you suppose in April they asked all the manufacturers to submit prototype sample balls that go 15 yards and 25 yards less far?
-
"the manufacturers came up with balls that gave explosive benefits at above 109"
Can you point me to some data that relates carry distance to ball speed to clubhead speed up to and above 109? Does it get increasingly better as you go higher? Is going from 130 to 135 better than 120 to 125? Where's the data?
Yes, I can point you to the data. Take a look at the the distance increases on tour which took place in 2003, sort by ball use and you will see that there is a correlation between use of the ProV1x and significant gain. Then sort the ProV1x users by swing speed and you will see those with faster swing speeds gained significantly more than those without. In fact those with slower swing speeds (below 109) gained very little or, while those with faster swing speeds gained a disproportionate amount.
Or you can look at statements of those with high swingspeeds who hit the ProV1x, such as Ernie Els or Phil Mickelson. They will explain that there is little benefit to the ball with an easy, slower swing, but when one increases the swing speed, the results are explosive.
It is a matter of optimizing ball performance to a swing speed higher than 109.
-
TEPAUL
Are you suggesting that any change in the distance coming from the ball will be implemented across the board...from the pro's right down to the 30 handicapper?
Does the USGA have any data that would warrant implementing a ball roll back at all levels of play, or would that be an effort to have uniformity?
Please tell if I am wrong, but now more than ever, a good case can be made for admitting that the pro's play a game that is much different than the game you and I play and they need their own set of rules/regs, and, perhaps, their own tracks to play on.
Increasingly the PGA tour is becoming more like NASCAR and maybe that is a good thing....so why not take that to its ultimate conclusion.
-
Tom,
The details you relate fall into what I referred to as "...whatever political or institutional or just plain crazy reasons..." because as I said there's no reason to believe the technical staff or Frank in particular were dummies.
As for why do I think they asked for some reduced-distance balls to be produced, I think they are going to be forced into some sort of de facto bifurcation although I don't think they or the R&A will choose to introduce it using that loaded term. I think they want to (this time) thoroughly cover their bases and make sure if they promulgate a specification for a reduced-performance competition ball that the manufacturers don't come up with an end run around the spec and come out with a ProV1-like ball a few years down the road.
I just don't see any way to get the golfing publc (and the people who market equipment to us) to give up any noticable distance at all at this point in the game. Personally, if a year from now our choices ranged from a 1995-era Titleist Professional clone for a "control" ball up to something similar to a current Noodle for a "straight distance" ball that would be just fine and dandy. I think I'd be in the minority though.
-
"Does it get increasingly better as you go higher? Is going from 130 to 135 better than 120 to 125? Where's the data?"
David:
This is the question. In other words is the percentage distance increase basically matched by the percentage swing speed increase or is there a much greater percentage distance increase when swing speed, for instance, increases by .038% from 130 to 135? The latter could probably be considered an explosive effect or something other than a straight-line effect, and I don't know that that is necessarily true although I'm quite sure the USGA Tech Center would and I can call and ask. Clearly the USGA's Tech Center has more reliable ball performance data than you do by just looking through published tour driving distance stats. Or do you think the USGA Tech Center has not yet figured out they too can look at and analyze tour driving distance stats? ;)
I think a lot of this has to do with spin rate. I don't know how old you are or if you remember seeing in person (you couldn't see it on TV) a power hitter like Nicklaus or Love about 20 years ago when they really pounded a high spinning ball (the kind they used back then). It seems like the harder they hit it the more the ball would stay down for a certain distance before climbing like a Lear jet. These new lower spinning new age balls do not do that---they launch much higher much quicker and that is the real distance trajectory. The flat initial trajectory of the old high spinning balls is a good distance trajectory.
In other words if a power hitter like Nicklaus or Love hit one of the old low spinning two piece rocks 20 years ago they'd probably get the same basic trajectory they do with these new age balls.
It's all about spin rate. In the old days no good players ever used low spinning golf balls because they felt way too hard around the greens.
-
Brett; I have had conversations with counsel to the USGA on matters related to this issue and I have played golf with Frank Thomas. They are not dummies as you noted but they candidly admit that they were mistaken on this one. The phenomenon that Dave Moriarty discusses, the fact that the current ball creates exponentially greater distance increases as swing speeds exceed certain very high levels was not anticipated. As such, when the 109 mph standard was used, it was expected that distance would increase as swing speed increased (assuming square contact) but not at the increased rate. That unanticipated consequence of the new technology is the largest factor in the extraordinary increases in distance over the last several years and is the motivating factor behind the USGA's interest in a possible rollback. Interestingly, if they can limit the synergy previously discussed, the rollback should have a greater effect on the most powerful player with a commensurate lesser effect on others. There is no question that the ball is longer for everyone but the greatest increases even when measured on a proportional basis are at the highest level. This is quite different from prior advances in ball technology.
-
Sheldon:
One way to accomplish what you just said there is for the regulatory bodies to legislate a limitation on the minimum spin rate of the golf ball, at least for instance off a driver face.
Heretofore, the regulatory bodies have never considered regulating or limiiting the spin rate of a golf ball or at least they've never done that.
-
Tom; I agree that the spin approach should be explored
-
Sheldon:
Since I'm so untechnical although they've told me a number of times I forget about the specific technical reasons for this ball performance stuff but I just called the tech center again and they confirm that there is no "explosive" effect as swing speed increases and that it's pretty linear.
The big distance increase due to balls (not considering COR, lighter weight materials and computer "optimization) was when most all the elite players went from the high spinning balls to these new age lower spinning balls. The reason they all made the change is because the manufacturers finally figured out how to make a low spinning ball that didn't feel so hard (around the greens).
According to tech center the distance increase (when solely considering the golf ball itself) is basically the result of the different trajectory caused be the lower spinning balls and somewhat altered initial launch angle due to construction properties.
I realize there will probably always be people on here who think they can prove the ball explodes distance-wise at some swing speed or swing speed increase (above 109mph) by analyzing tour driving distance stats but somehow I think I'd rather believe the USGA Tech Center who actually have the mechanisms and tests to analyze this stuff and have spent app $10 million on analyzing numerous ball performance characteristics and the technical reasons for them for the last 3-4 years. ;)
-
So many assertions based on what data?
Pat,
"The fact that you haven't gotten shorter, despite aging ten years"
Do you have data to support the deterioration of distance by each year of aging, absent of technology change?
YES
I watched my Father and his generation, including some exceptional players, year after year, for 30 years, as their distance eroded.
Until, the metal wood and the Pinnacle ball came on the scene. Then there was an immediate jump, a recapturing of some of their lost distance.
Now let me think, was that the same year they all got their
B-12 shots, or was that the year El Nino swept in from the west, or both ? [/color]
Methinks this is anecdotal observation - not measured data. I was hoping that there was a chart, based on measurable tests, that you knew of, that would tell me on average how much distance players lose as they age. I don't dispute that distance is lost.
I was just trying to make the point that TEP makes in other postings, that measurable data on equipment performance seems sadly lacking and that's what the USGA is trying to come up with in their research.
Is it linear degradation from some peak point? Or exponential?
It varies, but, the trend is undeniable.
For some it's linear, for others it's more sporadic.
But, relentlessly, the trend continues in but one direction.
When I see amateurs, in their mid 50's and 60's hitting the ball farther then Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Palmer and Nicklaus did in their prime, it should tell you something, unless of course, you're in denial.[/color]
I'm not in denial. Technology helps all of us hit it further to some degree. I just would like to see some measurable test data that demonstrates the reality rather than try to base it on anecdotal observation.
-
Sheldon:
Since I'm so untechnical although they've told me a number of times I forget about the specific technical reasons for this ball performance stuff but I just called the tech center again and they confirm that there is no "explosive" effect as swing speed increases and that it's pretty linear.
The big distance increase due to balls (not considering COR, lighter weight materials and computer "optimization) was when most all the elite players went from the high spinning balls to these new age lower spinning balls. The reason they all made the change is because the manufacturers finally figured out how to make a low spinning ball that didn't feel so hard (around the greens).
According to tech center the distance increase (when solely considering the golf ball itself) is basically the result of the different trajectory caused be the lower spinning balls and somewhat altered initial launch angle due to construction properties.
I realize there will probably always be people on here who think they can prove the ball explodes distance-wise at some swing speed or swing speed increase (above 109mph) by analyzing tour driving distance stats but somehow I think I'd rather believe the USGA Tech Center who actually have the mechanisms and tests to analyze this stuff and have spent app $10 million on analyzing numerous ball performance characteristics and the technical reasons for them for the last 3-4 years. ;)
Good stuff. Do you suppose the USGA would release to you, so you could post it, a table that shows the carry distance vs swing speed vs ball speed from their testing? And the test conditions? Do you know if they measure the carry distance physically or do they model it?
-
"Do you know if they measure the carry distance physically or do they model it?"
I'm not sure but I think both.
Could I get them to release their technical data so I could post it on here?
I'd say the chances of that are about as good as you getting all 1500 registrants of this website to sing a simultaneous chorus of;
"Dear USGA, we're so sorry we're so critical of everything you do all the time
and we promise never to be critical again, and secretly we really love you".
-
Bryan:
I just called the USGA and asked them if they'd release the technical data you mentioned to me so I could post it on Golfclubatlas.com
They said they'd consider it if I could get all 1500 GOLFCLUBATLAS.com registrants to drag GeoffShac up to Far Hills and into the Tech Center and place him in front of Iron Bryon so IB could launch his head on a high trajectory out into the outdoor range at a swing speed of 122mph with a brand new R7 460cc driver.
I told them I'd never consider such a cruel and underhanded thing since he's a friend of mine anyway. They said---well OK then don't expect them to let me have that technical data so it could be posted on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
However, before they had the chance to hang up I told them I'd consider it if they let me ride around on their NetJet this coming year to the top 23 golf courses on Golf Digest's list and if they flew me out to Santa Monica to pick him up.
They then asked me if I really thought it would be possible to lure him onto their NetJet.
I said---good point---but if they'd let me take Hogan's 1 iron out of the case in Golf House and out to the coast with me I might be able to whack him upside the head with it when he wasn't looking and wrap him unconcsious in one of his carpets and haul him onto the NetJet back to NJ, Far Hills, the Tech Center and Iron Byron.
Just before we all hung up I heard one of the Tech Center guys asking if anyone had any idea what the spin rate, launch angle and initial velocity of GeoffShac's head might be and if it would be a high draw or a low fade.
-
Since I'm so untechnical although they've told me a number of times I forget about the specific technical reasons for this ball performance stuff but I just called the tech center again and they confirm that there is no "explosive" effect as swing speed increases and that it's pretty linear.
According to tech center the distance increase (when solely considering the golf ball itself) is basically the result of the different trajectory caused be the lower spinning balls and somewhat altered initial launch angle due to construction properties.
Interesting, but I am not sure what to make of it without more information. What do they mean when they say the progression is linear? Linear as a percentage increase, or as an actual yardage increase? Does this apply when equipment, ball, and swing are optimized? If this is true then why do so many golfers with moderatel swing speeds get no benefit from a ball like the ProV1x, while those with fast swing speeds get a big boost?
I am not doubting what they told you, just trying to understand it. Shel's comments about his dealings with the USGA seem somewhat inconsistent with yours, and while I am sure that at some level they reconcile we do not have sufficient information to reconcile them at this point.
One important factor to consider is not only the linearity of the progression, but also the slope. I'll try to chart out a hypothetical to show you what I mean.
_____________________
I know your comments about the USGA and Geoff are in jest, but unfortunately there is probably some degree of truth in your portrayal of their feelings toward Geoff. If so it baffles me. Geoff has been so far ahead of them on this distance issue that you'd think instead of being offended by him that they would embrace him and see what they could learn from him. They ought to send their jet to pick him up so they could get his take on the whole issue. Both might learn something.
-
"Does this apply when equipment, ball, and swing are optimized? If this is true then why do so many golfers with moderatel swing speeds get no benefit from a ball like the ProV1x, while those with fast swing speeds get a big boost?"
David:
That's a very good question.
I didn't exactly ask that or that way but from everything they've told me so far I'd say it this way.
First of all consider this:
I asked if a power hitter, for instance, Love, used the same equipment he has today 20 years ago with a low spinning two piece hard ball (the old rock, like a Pinnacle) if he'd get basically the same trajectory and distance as a ProVx. He said absolutely minus perhaps a slightly different initial launch angle characteristic between the two balls.
So if you just consider the ball alone it's all about spin rate that effects the trajectory which effects the distance of a power hitter and apparently pretty dramatically.
The thing you may not realize is when a real power hitter hits a ball like those old high spinning soft balls very hard (high swing speed) they tend to really stay down initially and then maybe 100 yards out they climb lke a Lear jet taking off.
Why that is I really can't say comprehensively (although you can find the technical aerodynamic reasons for it on the Internet) but that's a proven fact. And the fact is just about all of the elite players about ten years ago used the high spinning soft balls (because they all wanted their soft feel around the green). Tech even mentioned that today's ProVx spins around 2,000 rpms while those old high spinning soft balls were about 3,000 rpms. That's a big difference.
So when the elite players who all swing around 109 and above started using the new age ball around 5-10 years ago their trajectories did not stay down like it used to when they hit the high spin balls really hard. Their trajectories with the new low spinning balls (ProV (and the old rocks)) launched right up and that's the distance trajectory. With the golf ball considered in and of itself----that caused a big distance spike. Of course, as you say, there were other factors from back then to now---lighter materials, larger heads, computer optimization and greater COR, and maybe due to various factors power hitters simply swing with more abandon.
One of the reasons lower swing speed golfers didn't see much difference into the ProVx age is most of them used low spinning hard balls for up to 30-40 years anyway (unlike the elite players) and those balls perform no different distance-wise for them than the ProVx type---so they saw no real difference.
The other reason is even if lower swing speed golfers did use the high spinning softer balls all the elite players used to use they generally don't have the swing speed to be able to keep those higher spinning balls down like the elite players used to.
Golfers like you and me David, probably don't have the swing speed to keep one of those old high spinning balls down like the elite players could even if we tried to hit it as hard as we could.
This is the story for the distance spike in just the context of the golf ball back then compared to now. It's pretty much all about spin rate with a high swing speed, and the fact that almost all elite players went from high spin rate balls to low spin rate balls.
As an example of this logic and reality read what Tiger Woods said about the spin rate he uses and how it plays out for him in a distance context. You can find what he said on GeoffShac's website on the first page.
-
Pat Mucci -
Did your father and the top amateurs of his generation express any concern about the metal wood and the Pinnacle distance ball?
The meaurements for my little map there were taken from the New York State geographical information systems web site.
-
"Geoff has been so far ahead of them on this distance issue that you'd think instead of being offended by him that they would embrace him and see what they could learn from him. They ought to send their jet to pick him up so they could get his take on the whole issue."
David:
I sure do hope you mean that in jest. I've known Goeff for a long time now and he certainly is a strong advocate for distance control but Geoff certainly does not understand the technical ramifications of either what happened in the last 10-12 years and how to go about doing something about it as well as the USGA's Tech Center. And don't forget, the USGA's Tech Dept makes recommendations on I&B (26 years with Frank Thomas) to the "Equipment Standards" Committee who votes and whose vote ends up being voted on by the board of the USGA. The USGA Tech Center does not make I&B policy that gets enacted---ultimately the combined boards of the R&A and USGA do that.
Do you see what that friend of Shel's said who's apparently a lawyer for the USGA or even the "Equipment Standards" committee? Technically this issue cannot cut both ways and for whatever reason that man just has his technical facts wrong. Perhaps he should just go into the USGA's Tech Center and go over this with them again. At the very least there is virtually no conceivable way that lawyer could know more about the technical ramifications of I&B than the USGA Tech Center does. I'm just waiting for someone on here to claim that or even claim they understand this stuff better than the USGA's Tech Center, at which point I'm going to publicly howl with laughter. ;)
This is precisely what used to just frustrate the Holy Hell out of Frank Thomas----he'd give them the technical ramifications of this I&B stuff and the committee people either couldn't or didn't figure it out correctly or just didn't care because they were concerned about getting sued.
I saw Frank around for a long time and he didn't seem to care about getting sued---Hell, Karsten sued him personally for something like $10 million. Frank just wanted to hold the line---he may not have anticipated everything---like the ultimate effect of the ball change but he sure tried to hold the line on COR right at the COR of a persimmon face---and anyone can look and see that his recommendation on that is part of the record long ago.
Did they take his advice? No, they didn't. If they had would distance have spiked like it did? More than very likely it would not have. But that's water under the bridge now.
-
A common-sense way to visualize why high-spin balls start out on a low trajectory and low-spin balls start out on a high trajectory is to realize that for a clubhead with a certain loft striking the ball at a certain speed the amount of energy delivered to the ball is split between three components (not counting lost energy due to the imperfect rebound of the ball off the face).
Forward
Upward
Spin
The degree of loft of the clubface along with the characteristics of the ball (more specifically the ball-clubface system if you want to account for so-called "spring-like effect") determines the split between these three components. The proportion going into "Forward" is pretty much determined by the loft of the clubface. So the type of ball can cause more "Upward" and less "Spin" (harder cover, etc.) or more "Spin" and less "Upward" (softer cover, etc.).
So at a given loft and clubhead speed, a ball that spins more will always start out less "Upward" than a ball that spins less. That's the initial launch.
Once the ball is away from the clubface and moving through the air, the backspin produces an aerodynamic force to elevate the ball above its initial "Upward" angle. However, gravity is also working to make the ball travel below its initial angle. The old high spin balls when hit hard generated a considerable amount of aerodynamic upforce. The reason it appeared to take effect after 100 yards or so was that it produced an upward-inflected curve until drag and gravity conspired to bend that curve back toward the ground.
How's that?
-
TomPaul,
I read your posts above and it is all very interesting, and helps explain how we got to where we are today, but unless I am missing something it doesnt really address the impact on the game of different balls at different swing speeds.
To say that the increase is linear without explaining what that means does not really put the issue of apparent explosiveness to rest. We at least need to know just what exactly they are calling linear. Are they comparing . . .
-- incrimental mph increases to actual distance increases?
-- percentage mph increases to percentage distance increases?
-- incrimental mph increases to percentage distance increases?
-- percentage mph increases to actual distance increases?
For example, the 3rd method might produce a linear result, but the actual distance increases will not necessarily be linear.
Also, realize that whatever method they use, the slope of the line is crucial when we start comparing balls. Even if the increases are linear (by whatever method.) How much increase are different balls getting for similar speed increases?
For hypothetical example, using the first method above, here is a chart for two hypothetical balls. One ball increases 9 yards per 5 mph increase in swing speed, the other increases 11 yards per 5 yd increase in swing speed.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Misc/distancechart.jpg)
Note that the second ball gives much more benefit for a higher speed swinger and actually hurts the slower swing golfer, relative to the first ball.
Note also that both balls likely comply at the old standard (296.7 yds at 109 mph) and the new proposed (320 yds at 120 mph.)
Note also that is hypothecal. I dont know if these numbers are reasonable or even possible, but you can see that, theoretically at least, one can have a linear progression and still provide a much greater benefit to the higher swing speed golfer.
-
David:
The USGA is your National amateur golf association that's charged with monitoring I&B in the USA and Mexico just as much as it's my National amateur golf association.
I suggest you call this number 908-234-2300. One of a few very nice ladies will answer. Tell her you'd like to speak with the Tech Center and she'll connect you. When you get them ask them if they'd mind if you sent them an email with that post above and that graph attached to it, and if they'd mind carefully examining it and answering your questions and hypotheticals and such.
I'm afraid I'm just too damn dumb to understand what you're after here and why the answers I produced today after speaking with them about whether there's some "explosive effect" at some swing speed or swing speed range is not satisfactory.
If they happen to ask you if you're a current member of the USGA and if you've paid your annual membership fee lately tell them that's none of the USGA Tech Center's Goddamn business and if they want to know something like that they can take it up with the USGA Member's Program Dept.
If they don't seem to accept that response from you just tell them you're a friend of GeoffShac's and if they don't answer your questions you're gonna tell him about this kettle of fish and then tell them they'll really be in some deep CaCa.
Tell them they'd better bloody well cough up some pretty fine hypothetical answers like yesterday if they don't want to find themselves totally mired in "Spin Rategate".
-
TEP,
And here I thought you could charm your national association into releasing the national secrets of spin, speed and distance. ;D They sure aren't going to tell us, your northern neighbours, who aren't members. Are you sure you don't want to sacrifice Shack for the cause? Seriously, it is good to know that there is some objective testing going on rather than all the speculation. Hopefully all will be revealed in time.
Seems to me that GD did an article some time ago where they tested side by side new balls and equipment versus old. As best I recall, the conclusion is about the same as the USGA is suggesting to you.
Dave,
From a physics point of view, I believe they mean linear in the way you drew your chart. No idea what the slope of the line is, but you could guess based on a test. Get three people with three disparate swing speeds and have them swing the same club at the same ball and measure their swing speed and the carry distance, making sure they have a centre hit each. If it's linear those three points will give you the line and the slope. My guess is it'd be about 3 yards per mph. Whether different balls have different slopes, who knows. I suspect the USGA would never release that level of detail.
Why do higher spinning balls rise and then drop? It's caused by the Bernoulli effect. Same reason airplane wings provide lift. A ball with back spin about a horizontal axis will have air travelling faster over the top of the ball and slower over the bottom. The faster moving air over the top creates lower pressure; the slower air on the bottom creates higher pressure. The differential causes the ball to lift. The more spin, the more lift. That trajectory will decrease carry distance at high ball speeds. At low ball speeds you want the spin to create the lift to keep the ball in the air longer. There's less resistance in the air than on the ground.
The physics of all this is complicated. Empirical tests are a way to simplify it. Could it be that the USGA is on the right track? ;)
-
Pat Mucci -
Did your father and the top amateurs of his generation express any concern about the metal wood and the Pinnacle distance ball?
I think they were amazed and in disbelief.
This was at the begining of the quantum leap.
Sort of like watching in 1968 when Dick Fosberry ran down the runway and executed the Fosberry Flop. [/color]
-
Dave,
From a physics point of view, I believe they mean linear in the way you drew your chart. No idea what the slope of the line is, but you could guess based on a test.
No way I could hold the variables constant enough to do meaningful tests. Plus, there won't likely be only one line, but rather multiple lines to reflect the different balls and the different variables.
I guess my point is that even if we are dealing with straight lines, the new technology may still disproportionately favor golfers with faster swing speeds.
Could it be that the USGA is on the right track? ;)
They could be on the right track, I just hope the race isnt already over.
-
"I guess my point is that even if we are dealing with straight lines, the new technology may still disproportionately favor golfers with faster swing speeds."
David:
I realize that's the point you seem to be trying to establish---and I think you have been for some time now. It is sort of a tantalizing point too that some may believe. However, I think the Tech Center explained why that feeling exists for some, but Tech's explanation puts most of the cause of that perception on the "switch", so to speak---eg when so many good players went from high spinning balls to lower spinning balls. That's when the real distance spike came about for elite players when looking at the distance increase only in the context of the golf ball.
One can see how and why this happened when one realizes that most all lower swing speed players never did make the "switch" from high spinning balls to lower spinning balls. Basically most all the "handicap" world always used low spinning balls or at least has for about 40 or more years since the enormous break-through came when the two piece hard cover ball was first made.
So it really is NOT that the new ProV type ball is NOT straight-line or linear in distance as swing speed increases it's just that the "switch" made it seem like it for a time for the elite player.
At least that's what the Tech Center says and they do have the stats and the data.
However, one class of stats I really would like to see is how much those old high-spinning soft balls that most all elite players used up until about 10 years ago were BELOW the ODS line when hit at 109mph. ;)
The reason I ask that is it really would be applicable to this overall subject because it is pretty obvious that the old two-piece hard ball like the Pinnacle was right on the ODS limit line for years. And that would explain why Tech Center said yesterday that if a power hitter like Davis Love used the equipment he does today 20 years ago with a two piece hard covered ball like a Pinnacle he would essentially get the same basic trajectory and distance that he does today with the ProV type ball. So why didn't elite power players like Love use that type of ball for more distance 20 years ago? I think we all know why.
Again, according to the Tech Center the physical explanation for the distance spike as it just relates to the golf ball is mostly all about spin rate.
So the theory is, if the regulatory bodies want to do something about distance why don't they just establish a new rule or reg for all golf balls that they cannot have LESS than X amount of spin rate? I asked the Tech Center that about two years ago---eg if it would sort of rollback distance for the power player and was basically told "Yep!"
The next question of course would be if that was done with the golf ball would it unnecessarily hurt the distance of the slower swinging player? The unbelievable thing to consider is it may not! Why not? Because slow swingers can't hit the higher spinning ball hard enough anway to really keep its trajectory down like power players.
-
Tom,
I am not sure why you think what I am saying and what the tech center guys are telling you is mutually exclusive. As I understand it, what I am saying fits perfectly what they are saying.
I am not a vector scientist (that's for you Shiv,) but as I understand it, the conversation about spin rate it is totally consistent with the faster swingers benefiting from technological changes more than the slower swingers. Here is what Bryan says above about spin rates, trajectory, and carry (with my bolds). . .
Why do higher spinning balls rise and then drop? It's caused by the Bernoulli effect. . . . A ball with back spin about a horizontal axis will have air travelling faster over the top of the ball and slower over the bottom. The faster moving air over the top creates lower pressure; the slower air on the bottom creates higher pressure. The differential causes the ball to lift. The more spin, the more lift. That trajectory will decrease carry distance at high ball speeds. At low ball speeds you want the spin to create the lift to keep the ball in the air longer. . . .
According to Bryan-- and even to you below-- only those with faster swing speeds benefit from these newer low spin balls. The higher the swing speed, the more benefit of the lower spin rate. The lower the swing speed, the more the detrement of the lower swing speed.
Now you always have given great weight to the fact that lower spin balls have been around for years. But we all know that almost all the best players found them unsuitable for control reasons. Making these low spin balls playable may well have been the technological advancement that is killing the short hitter, or it may have been a combination of technological advancements all relating to control at exceedingly high swing speeds.
Whatever the reason, the advancements have disproportionately helped only one end of the swingspeed spectrum, which is what many of us have been saying for a very long time.
In the chart above, the pink line would represent a ball that performed relatively better at high swing speeds and relatively worse at low swing speeds. If a ball with these distance characteristics existed before, it was unusuable to those who could have potentially benefited from the distance characteristics.
The next question of course would be if that was done with the golf ball would it unnecessarily hurt the distance of the slower swinging player? The unbelievable thing to consider is it may not! Why not? Because slow swingers can't hit the higher spinning ball hard enough anway to really keep its trajectory down like power players.
Tom, this is the exact point that I and many others (Pete L. for one) have been trying to make for three or four years now. It is quite possible to shape the rules so those with low swing speeds were not harmed at all. No need to bifurcate, no need to frustrate the hack by shortening his drives. Just lean on the big guy a little.
-
Tom, this is the exact point that I and many others (Pete L. for one) have been trying to make for three or four years now. It is quite possible to shape the rules so those with low swing speeds were not harmed at all. No need to bifurcate, no need to frustrate the hack by shortening his drives. Just lean on the big guy a little.
My point exactly! Although Craig Sweet won't believe me, at my modest club with 350 members, I have played with at least 5 golfers who can carry the ball 290 yards with ease. However I don't see the shorter hittters provoking the greens committee to build any new back tees.
The common thread here on the distance debate is that since normal golfers haven't gained any distance why reign the ball in! Well if you aren't fortunate enough to play with people capable of generating clubhead speed over 110 mph you wouldn't know why the situation is so out of hand.
Both Tom P and Dave make very valid points in their arguments: Dave wants action now, we've waited too long and Tom P; we must proceed with caution in such a volitile issue.
However in support of David's postion I will offer the following. I am without doubt the second shortest hitting 6 handicap on the planet. Only once have I played with someone whose handicap was equal to or lower than mine that I could outdrive (220 carry). Coming from New Bedford Ma., the home of the Titleist, I have always played them out of hometown loyalty (thank God they have a good product). For the 5 years prior to the introduction of the Pro V1 I played their Balata ball and can find no distance increase in the Pro V1. Of course the Pro V1 has an unbelievably durable cover and is great around the greens. But the distance benefits just don't work at my swing speed. I'm sure that a higher spinning ball would check the distance of floggers and make it harder for them to hit the ball straight with their all out swings. I doubt it would effect my distance in the least.
So from my point of view, I'm the guy on the lower edge of the pink line and want to see those guys on the top brought back in sight. Golf was a great game because it gave every player a chance to employ their unique skills to have a chance to win. Now the distance factor is emphasized inordinately and has skewed the game towards those who can swing fast. Please give the rest of us a fighting chance.
-
"The higher the swing speed, the more benefit of the lower spin rate. The lower the swing speed, the more the detrement of the lower swing speed."
David:
I'm not exactly sure why you think a lower spining ball is of any detriment to a slower swing speed player.
-
PeteL:
I'm not too sure what David Moriarty thinks I'm basically trying to say here but for years now I have said that the key to reigning in the excessive recent distance increase of the elite power player may lie in the R&A/USGA enacting a rule or reg regarding the ball that would place a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball may have.
The back pages of this website are full of that suggestion by me over the years. And I even remember where it first occured to me. A few years ago John Ott and I visited the USGA's Tech Center and our friend there gave us a demonstration of all the ball testing machines. We were standing next to the initial velocity machine and he had just explained to us the five areas or factors of the golf ball the R&A/USGA regulates.
Spin rate is not one of them and so I asked him if they instituted a sixth area of ball performance regulation to do with a limitation on the minimum amount of spin rate a ball could have if that could effect the distance these elite power players hit the ball. He thought for just a moment and basically said yes it would.
I then asked him why don't they do that and he thought for another moment and merely said because they never have regulated the spin rate of the golf ball.
But if you're following some of the things Jim Vernon just said in Atlanta it would appear they very well may be thinking of doing that among a couple of other things.
Jim Vernon in his report mentioned three things they are looking at now;
1/ MOI
2/ Spin generation
3/ All things to do with ball performance
If you read his report carefully it would appear "spin generation" in their opinion has as much to do with club faces as anything but the third area they mention---the ball---has many possible ramifications and what that Tech guy said about a golf ball's spin rate is certainly one of them.
-
David,
You make a valid point that the rate of change (slope) of the line is important to seeing what is happening.
If we assume that a ball were to gain distance at a rate exactly proportional to the swing speed, we would see that a ball hit at 109 MPH that went 296.8 yards (old standard), would now go 326.75 yards at 120 MPH. Since the USGA set the standard at 320 yards and no ball was found to be non-conforming, we have to assume that the slope of the line is lower than an exactly proportional increase. In addition to that, the USGA went from a wooden head driver to a 360 CC titanium driver with a higher COR and still came nowhere near a proportional distance increase.
Lets look at some numbers:
Increase that is a proportional increase (ie D2 = D1*(S2-S1) or 10% faster swing gives 10% more distance)
Speed Distance
090 245
100 272
109 296.8 (old standard)
115 313
120 326.75
125 340
130 354
Distances based on a line that runs from 296 at 109 to 320 at 120 ie D3 = D1+((D2-D1)*((S3-S1)/(S2-S1)))
Speed Distance
090 257
100 278
109 296.8
115 309
120 320
125 331
130 341
Notice that this line, if graphed would be flatter, meaning the difference between a 90 MPH swing and 130 MPH swing is 84 yards vs 109 in the proportional model.
Given that the titanium driver hits it further than the persimmon one, a 109 swing speed with titanium should have hit the ball further than the 296.8 yards allowed. If that is true, the line would have to be EVEN FLATTER!.
It seems to me that a 90 MPH swing with a wooden driver, probably would have a hard time going 245 yards as the proportional model suggests, but I suppose that perfect contact might get it that far.
If, instead, a 90 MPH swing hit the ball 220 and a 109 swing hit it 296.8, then a 120 MPH swing should hit it 341 yards which would make the ball non-conforming. So, if there is a curve, it must be a downward one, not an upward one. In other words, more speed gets proportionally less benefit.
Just out of curiosity, I took the numbers from the proportional data and adjusted them for a .78 COR (what the USGA says is the COR of persimmon). The numbers are within one yard of the second set of numbers.
If you adjust it for a COR of .83 which is the current maximum, the numbers drop by 3 yards for the 90 MPH swing and increase by 3 yards for the 130 MPH swing from the second set. This suggests a steeper curve for a higher COR which makes sense as many have said that the new drivers give more benefit for the faster swinger. At 120 MPH, the distance is 321.6 yards.
After doing all this, all I will say is that there really are too many assumptions given the lack of complete data to put much faith in anything I said here (although I do like the way the .78 COR validates the second set of numbers.)
-
JohnV:
What do you think about David M's stated feeling that a low spinning golf ball disproportionately benefits a high swing speed or alternatively a low spinning ball is disporportionately detrimental to a slow swing speed?
-
Tom,
I have no real feeling for that. I don't know enough about spin rates to even guess.
All I will ask is that if a low spinning ball hurt the slower swing speed, why did the high handicappers all play Pinnacles and Top-Rocks for years?
-
John,
Although your math looks sound you are discounting the fact that using Iron Byron data with just one driver (one probably ill suited to provide the best launch conditions for that ball) you are not mirroring the real world.
I think most reasonable people would agree that it's the synergy of the ball and the modern driver that produce the inordinate distance. In 5 years Tour players went from 6* drivers to 9*, to provide the launch conditions that optimize the ball they are playing. My experience tells me that there truely is a benefit for the player with swing speed in excess of the testing limit.
-
All I will ask is that if a low spinning ball hurt the slower swing speed, why did the high handicappers all play Pinnacles and Top-Rocks for years?
Because they roll a long way and they don't hook or slice as far offline.
Anyone with a clubhead speed much less than 100mph will get more carry with a high-spin ball than with a low-spin one. That additional five yards of carry does you no good if the high-spin ball also turns your 20-yard "fade" into a 40-yard banana ball.
-
Tom P,
There's a difference between "carries slightly less than the optimum distance through the air when struck by a driver" and "hurts their game". Everything about golf equipment is a tradeoff.
I'd say as you get information from USGA Tech Center please continue to share it with us. But I'd caution that when you are unable to reconcile your interpretation of something you hear from a USGA Tech person and your interpretation of something you read here...that does not always imply that one statement or the other is incorrect. Sometimes the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves, dear Tom.
-
John V.,
Thanks for the additional data. I simplified my approach by using 110 mph and 297 yds as my fulcrum point (a point that all balls would try to hit but not be above) but I can see now after rerunning some of the numbers that even this slight variation makes a difference.
I based my slopes for the pink line loosely on the numbers and explanation of the USGA press release, here . . .
http://www.usga.org/news/2003/july/conformance.html
It seems we are in agreement that it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that the technology has produced a steeper line, and thus helped the big hitter without necessarily benefiting the short hitter.
TomP asked . . .
I'm not exactly sure why you think a lower spining ball is of any detriment to a slower swing speed player.
The high swing speed players can generate enough speed to get the proper trajectory for maximum carry without much spin. The slower swing players cannot.
JohnV asked:
All I will ask is that if a low spinning ball hurt the slower swing speed, why did the high handicappers all play Pinnacles and Top-Rocks for years?
Brent provides a large part of the answer, but forgets one important factor: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Balatas not only cost substantially more, they didn't last nearly as long. One bad swing could ruin them. The new balls are so durable that I think this has caused us to forget just how easy it was to ruin a balata.
-
Pete L,
Your last post makes lots of sense to me. Higher swing speeds give the player the ability to launch the ball at the optimum angle with a lower lofted driver, and thus with the optimum spin rate. To get a similar launch angle with a slower swing speed one would generally need a higher lofted driver which should put more back spin on the ball.
Now that's as far as I can go. I don't know if what I think is correct, but it makes some sense to me at an empirical level.
-
Brent:
Regardless of whatever innuendo you're implying I feel the most reliable source of information on I&B issues is from the USGA Tech Center, not necessarily from those on this website who speculate on these I&B issues.
As I said to someone else on this thread the USGA is our national amateur golf association who're charged with monitoring and regulating golf balls and equipment. Anyone can call them and ask them technical questions, certainly not just me.
-
Tom,
I wasn't attempting innuendo. I do in fact appreciate when you (or anyone else) checks with the USGA folks and reports back here. I just think you're too quick to dismiss as clueless things that are said which you incorrectly take as being inconsistent with what you hear from the USGA.
The case in point being the low-spin ball thing. There are two facts that you believe are in conflict when they are actually mutually consistent:
1) For low clubhead speed players, a low-spin ball produces less carry distance with the driver (generally a few yards) than they would get with a higher-spin ball.
2) For years and years the majority of low clubhead speed players have found that low-spin balls work best for their game.
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, #2 in no way disproves #1 because #1 does not imply anything about what is the best ball for someone's game.
I am a case in point. I know from theory and from personal experience that using a ball that spins a lot off the driver will gain me 5, 6, 7 yards of carry distance. The high-spin ball works a little better on chips and short pitch shots, to boot.
That said, if I want to shoot the lowest score I use a harder cover, lower spin ball like a Noodle because the extra roll can somewhat offset the lesser carry distance, slices stay more on line, I get better trajectory and distance on iron shots and the ball holds it line better in the wind. None of that changes the fact that the maximum driver distance (carry) is achieved with a high-spin ball, there's just more to the game than driver distance.
-
"The high swing speed players can generate enough speed to get the proper trajectory for maximum carry without much spin. The slower swing players cannot."
David:
The higher swing speed player probably does generate a higher trajectory and greater carry than a slower swing speed player. In golf this generally falls into the realm of what's referred to as "skill" which according to the Joint Statement of Principles "is the dominant element of success throughout the game."
Is this to say that a slower swing speed player is not generating a trajectory and carry distance commensurate with his "skill" level? Are you trying to imply that a slower swing speed player should be able to acheive something close to an identical result as a higher swing speed player? And if you are why would you want to do that?
By the way, as I recall, according to the Tech Center the absolute ideal launch angle of club and ball is technically not acheivable by a human being.
-
By the way, as I recall, according to the Tech Center the absolute ideal launch angle of club and ball is technically not acheivable by a human being.
I'd add one word to that statement.
"Yet"
-
"I just think you're too quick to dismiss as clueless things that are said which you incorrectly take as being inconsistent with what you hear from the USGA.
The case in point being the low-spin ball thing. There are two facts that you believe are in conflict when they are actually mutually consistent:
1) For low clubhead speed players, a low-spin ball produces less carry distance with the driver (generally a few yards) than they would get with a higher-spin ball.
2) For years and years the majority of low clubhead speed players have found that low-spin balls work best for their game.
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, #2 in no way disproves #1 because #1 does not imply anything about what is the best ball for someone's game.
I am a case in point. I know from theory and from personal experience that using a ball that spins a lot off the driver will gain me 5, 6, 7 yards of carry distance. The high-spin ball works a little better on chips and short pitch shots, to boot.
That said, if I want to shoot the lowest score I use a harder cover, lower spin ball like a Noodle because the extra roll can somewhat offset the lesser carry distance, slices stay more on line, I get better trajectory and distance on iron shots and the ball holds it line better in the wind. None of that changes the fact that the maximum driver distance (carry) is achieved with a high-spin ball, there's just more to the game than driver distance."
Brent:
I'm not sure why you need to say I'm dismissing anything as clueless. I haven't done that on this thread. All I'm doing is telling you and David Moriarty what the Tech Center told me. David Moriarty mentioned on this thread the the new age balls have some 'explosive effect' at higher swing speeds. I called the USGA Tech Center and asked them AGAIN if they believe that to be true and they said they didn't.
On the other hand, if you two are saying that putting a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate of the golf ball can likely lessen the distance power players are hitting the ball today then I agree with you. I've been saying that on here for years now.
And you say that lower spin rate balls carry less far than higher spin rate balls? That has never been my experience and the whole point of the lower spin rate balls used by higher swing speed players these days is that they launch higher than high spin rate balls and consequently have a greater carry distance. That's most of the reason for the distance spike as it relates to higher swing speed players since the basic "switch" in the last decade or so. Otherwise why didn't the tour players hit the old high spin rate balls farther than they do these lower spin rate balls like a ProV?
I'm really not sure what you're saying in your #1 and #2 example and what you're assuming I believe.
-
"I'd add one word to that statement.
"Yet" "
Brent:
Do you disagree with the Tech Center when they say that it is physically impossible for a human being to hit a golf ball at the technically ideal angle of attack?
-
Brent Hutto,
Could you define or quantify LOW clubhead speeds that you reference.
It would help knowing at which speeds these results are garnered.
Thanks
-
Here's how I understand it.
For any clubhead speed there's a driver loft that will maximize carry distance. For my 88mph or so it's somewhere over 14 degrees, for typical male golfers in the 95mph range I think it's about 12 degrees, for someone who can produce 120mph it can go as low as 7.5 or 8 degrees.
That optimum loft is changed somewhat by how much of an upward blow you produce by teeing the ball high and forward. It also weakly depends on how much the particular ball you use spins (which in turn depends on the characteristic time of the clubface/ball combination). But all these are minor effects and the main effect is that the more clubhead speed the less loft you need to get perfect trajectory.
Assuming you have optimized the loft of your driver then there's some ideal amount of backspin to works with that loft and your clubhead speed to produce the maximum carry distance. At very low clubhead speeds (say under 85mph) there's no ball in the world that spins "enough" to produce the optimum carry distance. No matter what ball you use, a little more backspin would be good. At very high clubhead speeds (say over 125mph) there's any ball in the world spin more than optimum.
There's some point that I understand to be around 100mph (or maybe a bit higher, I'm not sure) where you might as well just use whatever ball works best otherwise because your trajectory is pretty much ballistic and the added distance from the highest-spin balls are only slightly more than with the lowest-spin balls. When you get well above that clubhead speed then you at least need to avoid the very highest spin balls or else you'll get that old Balata/Persimmon style upshooter that costs distance and is not the trajectory the better players want. Hence things like the ProV1x which spins less off the driver for high clubhead speed players than the original ProV1.
At the very highest clubhead speeds the players spend a lot of time getting a ball/driver combination with the lowest spin practical (although it will still be a little "too much" spin) because it makes such a big difference in their trajectory and carry distance on square, center hits. Below 100mph or so some guys still go through the ball/driver fitting process but they're really wasting their time because they're just getting slight variations on what's basically a ballistic (very little influence of backspin) ball flight.
Note Bene 1: In reality to do a perfect optimization you have to simultaneously find the optimum loft and optimum spin because they interact. That's only if you want to get it down to the last few percent of optimum carry.
Note Bene 2: Optimizations can involve varying the swing path, the characteristic time of the clubface and ball, the aerodynamic dimples, how high you tee it (to catch it on the upswing) and all sorts of other factors.
Note Bene 3: None of this applies much to the typical 90-95mph swing for which mostly you just need to get the golfer to use plenty of loft (12 or more degrees) rather than trying to use a 10-degree driver and swinging upward to compensate for the lack of loft.
Final Note: And keep in mind that maximizing driver carry distance is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of fitting equipment to your golf game.
-
Is this to say that a slower swing speed player is not generating a trajectory and carry distance commensurate with his "skill" level? Are you trying to imply that a slower swing speed player should be able to acheive something close to an identical result as a higher swing speed player? And if you are why would you want to do that?
Tom,
I am NOT saying that the slower swing players should be able to achieve anything close to the same as the higher swing player.
I AM saying that slower swing players do not swing hard enough to reap much (or any) distance benefit from balls like the ProV1x or even the ProV.
Look at it this way . . . Yesterday you said it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed, and that this change might not hurt slow swing players. If this is in fact true, then the lower swing speed players are not actually benefiting distance-wise from these new low spin balls.
And you say that lower spin rate balls carry less far than higher spin rate balls? That has never been my experience and the whole point of the lower spin rate balls used by higher swing speed players these days is that they launch higher than high spin rate balls and consequently have a greater carry distance. That's most of the reason for the distance spike as it relates to higher swing speed players since the basic "switch" in the last decade or so. Otherwise why didn't the tour players hit the old high spin rate balls farther than they do these lower spin rate balls like a ProV?
I dont think anyone said that the lower spin rate balls carry less far under every circumstance. In fact, the big hitter can launch them high enough to maximize the benefits of their lack of spin. If they took that kind of a rip at the balata, the ball would balloon to the moon and lose substantial distance.
In contrast, the lower swing rate players arent hurt distance-wise by a higher spin ball. The spin might actually benefit them distance-wise, giving them a higher trajectory and more carry. They can't swing hard enough for the spin to start to hurt them distance-wise.
Tom,
You keep contrasting what we are saying here to what the USGA told you. I think what we are saying is entirely consistent with what you said the USGA told you.
-
Do you disagree with the Tech Center when they say that it is physically impossible for a human being to hit a golf ball at the technically ideal angle of attack?
I'm not sure what the optimum angle is but I suspect it's an upward blow you couldn't create without a foot-tall tee or something. You just never know what way these guys might figure out one day to change the ideal to something they can do.
-
...
2) For years and years the majority of low clubhead speed players have found that low-spin balls work best for their game.
...
I didn't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I am way off base.
To the above assertion, I would caution not confusing the use of low spin balls by low clubhead speed players as being best for their game with as being what is found at Wal-mart.
I.e., I would say the majority of players playing low spin balls due so because of the cost, not because of any discernable characteristics of play.
-
While Brent says it just as well above, here is what our friends at Titleist say about the impact of spin on different swing speeds
. . . The greater the ball speed or spin rate, the greater the lift force. A proper amount of lift force results in an optimized trajectory that will maximize the distance for a given ball speed. Excessive lift, on the other hand, creates a shot that balloons, climbing excessively and costing the player significant distance. This fault is most commonly observed in hard-hitting amateurs using equipment poorly fit to their game. Proper golf club and ball selection usually helps these players to flatten their trajectory, improving their distance significantly.
The opposite can also be true. Many players with slow swing speeds don't generate enough lift force for the ball to experience positive lift. This group of players never sees any upward climb in their trajectory. Instead, their trajectory shape is usually low and flat, commonly referred to as a ballistic trajectory. For these players, a greater portion of their overall distance is often obtained through roll. Obviously, this player requires a golf club and ball selection completely different from the high lift player profile. By fitting the low lift player with equipment to produce more lift, the result is a more optimized trajectory for greater distance for the low swing speed player. . . .
from http://www.titleist.com/technology/launchmonitor.asp?bhcp=1
-
"Tom,
I am NOT saying that the slower swing players should be able to achieve anything close to the same as the higher swing player."
David:
Good. I suppose the most equitable result would be if distance increase proportionally matched swing speed increase.
"I AM saying that slower swing players do not swing hard enough to reap much (or any) distance benefit from balls like the ProV1x or even the ProV."
How do you know what distance benefit slow swing speed players are reaping from low spin rate balls? Do you realize most all slow swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for over 40 years? Do you realize that most high swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for not more than 10 years?
"Look at it this way . . . Yesterday you said it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed, and that this change might not hurt slow swing players. If this is in fact true, then the lower swing speed players are not actually benefiting distance-wise from these new low spin balls."
First of all, I did not say it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed. That would be impossible to do anyway. I did say it may be possible to somewhat reign in distance for high swing speed players if some some limitation was put on the MINIMUM amount of SPIN RATE a golf ball could have. Secondly, you seem to be saying that slow swing speed players did not benefit from a low spin rate ball like the high swing speed player has. I don't think you can say that as the slow swing speed player was apparently never subjected to the distance diminishing phenomenon the high swing speed player was when using a high spin rate ball.
The way you seem to try to deduce things one could probably more logically say that now that most all high swing speed players have gone to low spin rate balls (the type most slow swing speed players have used for about 40 years) then all swing speeds are now on a more proportional level with the distances they produce. And this may have a good deal to do with why the USGA Tech Center has said they see a linear result in distance production to swing speed increase.
"I dont think anyone said that the lower spin rate balls carry less far under every circumstance."
It looks to me like Brent Hutto said high spin rate balls carry farther than low spin rate balls. I believe the opposite to be true, at least for high swing speed players.
"In fact, the big hitter can launch them high enough to maximize the benefits of their lack of spin. If they took that kind of a rip at the balata, the ball would balloon to the moon and lose substantial distance."
I realize that and have been saying that for years. A high spinning ball like the old balata when hit hard by a high swing speed player would start at on a very flat and low trajectory for perhaps 100 yards and then climb dramatically (I believe I said like a Lear Jet climbing from take-off ;) ). This is the opposite of a distance enhancing trajectory.
"In contrast, the lower swing rate players arent hurt distance-wise by a higher spin ball. The spin might actually benefit them distance-wise, giving them a higher trajectory and more carry. They can't swing hard enough for the spin to start to hurt them distance-wise."
I agree that low swing speed players do not swing hard enough to create the type of trajectory that hurts high swing speed players distance-wise with a high spin rate ball. It is hard for me to say what the difference is in carry and distance to a slow swing speed player between a low spin rate ball and a high spin rate ball. My observations over the decades (remmebering that I'm a lot older than you and I actually remember when everyone used high spin rate golf balls) is that there isn't much difference to a slow swing speed player in trajectory or carry distance between a low spin rate and high spin rate golf ball.
And if that's true that would explain both why you are likely not correct in assuming high swing speed players get some sort of disportionately benefical result compared to a slow swing speed player with low spin rate balls when one factors in the increased "skill" of a high swing speed player (skill in the sense they are physically capable of swinging faster). It could also be the key to being able to somewhat roll back the distance of high swing speed players by legislating a LIMITATION on the MINIMUM SPIN RATE a golf ball can have without really effecting the distance of low swing speed players.
"Tom,
You keep contrasting what we are saying here to what the USGA told you. I think what we are saying is entirely consistent with what you said the USGA told you."
David:
I don't know that I keep contrasting what you are saying here to what the USGA told me. In this thread you stated that these low spin rate balls (ProVs) result in some "explosive effect" for high swing speed players. To me this connotes that with a high swing speed player there is some disporportionate distance increase in relation to swing speed increase at some point in a high swing speed player's swing speed. I called the USGA Tech Center and asked them about that and they said they believe that is just not true and the distance result to increased swing speed is bascially linear.
Now, if you want to debate what they mean by linear then I suggested you call them and ask them precisely what they mean by linear, rather than indulging in hypothetical graphs and statements to perhaps attempt to proof there is some "explosive effect" or non-linear relationship in all this. And if it appears I contrasted anything else they told me with what you've said on here it's probably because sometimes on here it's hard for me to tell what it is you're saying or trying to say.
Again, if you are saying that a practical solution to the distance spike of high swing speed players may somewhat result from the legislating of a limitation on the minimum amount of spin rate a golf ball can have then we are in agreement. As I said above, I've been saying for years that seems perhaps a reliable possibility.
I'm not saying that is the only solution to reign in or roll back the distance spike of high swing speed players but it may be one way that's quite effective.
-
David Moriarty:
While there is much very good and very technical information on the Titleist website relating to golf ball performance, I think I would be a bit hesitant to call those at Titleist 'our friends' (unless you're being sarcastic) if you are in the camp that would like to see some rollback of this distance spike on the part of elite high swing speed players.
WallyU & Co have not exactly shown themselves to be much in the way of advocates or supporters of any kind of distance roll-back, so who the hell knows what kind of BS hype they might come up with? I'm not saying their basic technical information to do with golf ball performance is wrong but the way they translate what it means across the golfing skill-level spectrum very well may be misleading so they might better resist any kind of distance rollback. ;)
-
TEPaul.
Wally's mission differs from that of David Fay's.
Their missions are at odds, if not at crossed swords, with one another.
I think Wally's done a great job at his position.
-
TEPaul.
Wally's mission differs from that of David Fay's.
Their missions are at odds, if not at crossed swords, with one another.
I think Wally's done a great job at his position.
Pat
Don't they have the same stated (or implied) overall mission--i.e. to grow the game of golf?
They are at odds only in regards to the means of doing that: Wally thinks that technology will bring more people into the game; Fay et. al. think it will be done through First Tee programmes, universal DIY handicapping systems; etc.
Part of the real problem is that the USGA has another contradictory mission, i.e. to "protect" the game of golf (and believe that they, and the R&A, are uniquely qualified and authorized to define just what that "game" is--usually in terms of what it was, rather than what it might be). So, on one hand they try to get more people into the game, and with the other hand they try to slap down any technological advancements which will make the game more enjoyable to play for the great majority of participants.
Wally, et.al. are fortunate that their additional objective (i.e. making a profit for their shareholders) is consonant with the growth of the game.
Organisations with fundamentally conflicting objectives/missions will never succeed, whatever arena they operate in.
-
"TEPaul.
Wally's mission differs from that of David Fay's.
Their missions are at odds, if not at crossed swords, with one another.
I think Wally's done a great job at his position."
Pat:
Remarks like that to me are basically just non-specific somewhat hollow words, nothing more. Fay's mission should be to protect the game of golf in the I&B context and Wally's mission should be to make money for his company. There is no reason at all they can't both get on the same page on this distance issue by either stopping the distance increase or rolling back the distance the ball goes in the future if they both want to see the game of golf remain healthy over the long haul.
-
"I think Wally's done a great job at his position."
Pat:
That's your opinion and I don't exactly share it. Titleist has always been a powerhouse in the ball sector of golf and I don't know that Wally Uiehlein's heretofore fairly adverserial position towards the R&A/USGA has exactly served the long-term mission of his company or golf all that well. Had Titleist been far more cooperative regarding this distance issue do you really think it would have hurt the company's bottom line or their reputation?
-
Don't they have the same stated (or implied) overall mission--i.e. to grow the game of golf?
I know what that means to Wally, increased product lines, increased sales and increased profits.
What does it mean to the USGA, diluting the quality of product to make it more appealing ? [/color]
They are at odds only in regards to the means of doing that: Wally thinks that technology will bring more people into the game; Fay et. al. think it will be done through First Tee programmes, universal DIY handicapping systems; etc.
I don't agree with your conclusion.
Making the game easier, quickly, isn't in the best interest of the "game" even if more people are drawn to it because it's been made less challenging.
As to the First Tee programs I don't know if they've been successful, despite their promotion as such.
I know more young people drawn to the game through caddying then I do throught the first tee programs.
I'm one of those dinosaurs that thinks good caddy programs are the best way to bring young people to the game.[/color]
Part of the real problem is that the USGA has another contradictory mission, i.e. to "protect" the game of golf (and believe that they, and the R&A, are uniquely qualified and authorized to define just what that "game" is--usually in terms of what it was, rather than what it might be).
For a long, long while the USGA and the R&A performed well in "protecting" and "preserving" the "game".
It is only recently that the "game" is in jeopardy, vis a vis, high tech.
Geoff Shackelford has a feel for what the "game" is.
So does Ken Bakst, Roger Hansen and many other individuals familiar with its history, traditions and play.
The inherent lure of the game is its challenge and when you diminish that, you diminish the inherent lure.[/color]
So, on one hand they try to get more people into the game, and with the other hand they try to slap down any technological advancements which will make the game more enjoyable to play for the great majority of participants.
Here's where we really disagree.
I don't consider making the game easier vis a vis rapid technological advances as protecting the game, nor do I feel it will bring more people to the game in the long run.
If you lower the basket more people would play basketball ?
It would make it more enjoyable ?
The masses with an average height of 5'8" to 5'10" inches would enjoy it more because they too could dunk the ball ?
But, where do you stop, 8', 6' ?
In a "me" society the pressure is constant, if not ever increasing, to satisfy the whims of each individual, rather than protect the integrity of the game. And, the integrity of the game is the inherent challenge it provides.
Fairness and ease of play aren't two virtues of the game.[/color]
Wally, et.al. are fortunate that their additional objective (i.e. making a profit for their shareholders) is consonant with the growth of the game.
Sometimes managing for quarterly goals blinds executives with respect to long term goals and maintaining the integrity of the product.[/color]
Organisations with fundamentally conflicting objectives/missions will never succeed, whatever arena they operate in.
That's a good point.
Ask yourself this.
Was it the USGA's stated mission to grow the game in 1928, 1938, 1948, 1958, 1968, 1978 or 1988 ?
Yet the game grew.
Was it the virtue of the game ?
Or was it the marketing efforts of the USGA ?
If you protect and preserve the game, its inate values will grow it, you don't need commercials to perform that misssion.[/color]
-
TEPaul,
There was a time when the USGA and the manufacturers were in perfect harmony and the game was protected, preserved, and continued to grow.
A hand in glove relationship needs to be re-established, but, it's the manufacturers who are resisting because they know it will hurt their bottom lines, at least for the first few quarters, and maybe over the long haul.
-
I know this isn't on the topic, but since others have brought it up, I'm going to post this. As a new member of the board of the First Tee of Pittsburgh, I want to clarify a couple of things.
The mission of the First Tee is not to grow the game of golf, from their home page it is:
To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.
If golf grows because of it, that is a side benefit.
In Pittsburgh last year, over 4000 kids came to First Tee functions and facilities. Of those, over 2500 took 9 hours of life skills and golf classes and passed tests (written and golf) to earn their "credentials" from the program. I doubt there were 2500 youngsters caddying in the entire state of Pennsylvania. Even if none of those kids ever picked up a golf club again it would be a success. Fortunately many of them will.
Go to the First Tee website (http://www.thefirsttee.org) and read about it and then tell me why the USGA or any organization shouldn't be supporting it.
-
Remarks like that to me are basically just non-specific somewhat hollow words, nothing more.
They're only hollow if you don't bother to analyze them.[/color]
Fay's mission should be to protect the game of golf in the I&B context and Wally's mission should be to make money for his company.
That's what I said.[/color]
There is no reason at all they can't both get on the same page on this distance issue by either stopping the distance increase or rolling back the distance the ball goes in the future if they both want to see the game of golf remain healthy over the long haul.
Firstly, public corporations tend to have a quarterly mind set.
Terms like "future" and "long haul" can be too far removed to be seen clearly.
And, there is a reason why they can't get on the same page.
Starting with Ping, the manufacturers felt that they could go their way, do their thing, outside of the perameters, which were ill defined in the age of hi-tech advances.
Part of the reason for this was the very rapid advances in hi-tech, the rotating nature of leadership in the USGA, finances, and vision, or rather the lack of the latter two.
IF, and it's a big [size=8x] IF [/size] the manufacturers would abide by and conform with USGA policy and I&B specs there would be NO problem.
The problem is, they won't.
The USGA has to provide the specs to alter the ball and equipment such that the game is protected and preserved, such that the inherent lure remains the challenge.
They have to avoid catering to the lowest common denominator, which is what the manufacturers have done.
-
I know this isn't on the topic, but since others have brought it up, I'm going to post this. As a new member of the board of the First Tee of Pittsburgh, I want to clarify a couple of things.
The mission of the First Tee is not to grow the game of golf, from their home page it is:
To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.
If golf grows because of it, that is a side benefit.
In Pittsburgh last year, over 4000 kids came to First Tee functions and facilities. Of those, over 2500 took 9 hours of life skills and golf classes and passed tests (written and golf) to earn their "credentials" from the program. I doubt there were 2500 youngsters caddying in the entire state of Pennsylvania. Even if none of those kids ever picked up a golf club again it would be a success. Fortunately many of them will.
Go to the First Tee website (http://www.thefirsttee.org) and read about it and then tell me why the USGA or any organization shouldn't be supporting it.
John
I am fully in support of the FTF because I am a member of the Church of Golf. As a committed Member, however, I know that any sort of evangelical programme has not only a stated mission, but an implicit one--i.e. expanding the ranks of the faithful.
Pat
You agree with me, but not the USGA. Please understand that. They are the ones trying to grow the game--I could care less (in fact, if you held my feet to the fire, I'd admit that I'd prefer the game to shrink rather than grow, if it is going to grow in the manner that it has over my lifetime....).
I'd love for more people to understand and embrace the historical priniciples of the game--as you and I and John V and the great majority of the people on this site have learned it over the years--but this ain't going to happen, for a number of reasons that have been posited and debated on this site for many years.
I stand by what I said in my previous post.
-
"TEPaul,
There was a time when the USGA and the manufacturers were in perfect harmony and the game was protected, preserved, and continued to grow."
Patrick:
I realize that and have for years as my Dad worked for Spalding as well as knew practically everyone in the regulatory part of golf back then.
"A hand in glove relationship needs to be re-established, but, it's the manufacturers who are resisting because they know it will hurt their bottom lines, at least for the first few quarters, and maybe over the long haul."
I realize that a better or more cooperative relationship should be reestablished between the manufacturers and the regulatory bodies and a number of years ago I offered a unique suggestion that I still believe would go a long way to accomplishing that.
The manufacturers aren't worried about their bottom line over the next few quarters. Unless hundreds of thousands of golfers drop out of the game in the next few quarters golfers will be buying golf balls just as they have been.
The manufacturers resist for a single fairly obvious reason, in my opinion. If the first distance roll-back in golf's history is accomplished by the regulatory bodies that will begin to effectively expose the one massive advertizing "con-job" most all ball manufacturers have been doing on the golfing public for like forever. And that is to constantly say through advertizing that their golf ball is longer than the other manufacturers or the longest ball in golf. That is perhaps the most effective golf ball advertizing subject there's ever been and the last thing any of the golf ball manufacturers want to do at this point is to have something happen that will begin to expose the fallacy of that BS! If that happens the time will be nigh when they can no longer believably advertize their golf ball as longer or the longest. Who would believe them? If for the first time an across-the-board distance roll-back is legislated and effected it's obvious that both a distance cap has been accomplished and distance increase is no longer to be expected as it has heretofore been throughout the history of golf.
Not unless, of course, both the manufacturers decide to manufacture and market "non-conforming" balls and equipment in contravention of the USGAs' I&B rules and regs and the golfing public buys it en masse.
-
TEPaul asked:
How do you know what distance benefit slow swing speed players are reaping from low spin rate balls?
Personal experience, common sense, anecdote, expert opinion, a very basic understanding of scientific principles, etc. . . .
Do you realize most all slow swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for over 40 years?
Yes, I do realize this, but think that they were knowingly or unknowingly giving up some carry distance in order to: 1) Keep mishits more on line; 2) get more roll; and 3) save money. I think the last factor is particularly important given the lack of durability over the old soft ball.
Do you realize that most high swing speed players have been using low spin rate balls for not more than 10 years?
Yes, because technology has made these balls more controllable and responsive at very, very high swing speeds, thus they have reaped a huge advantage which is not available to the rest of us . . .
First of all, I did not say it may be possible to push back on the longest hitters by putting a lower limit on swing speed. That would be impossible to do anyway. I did say it may be possible to somewhat reign in distance for high swing speed players if some some limitation was put on the MINIMUM amount of SPIN RATE a golf ball could have.
This was unfortunate miscommunication on my part, and if I caused confusion then I apologize. You of course said a limit on the minimum spin rate. You also said that such a limit on the minimum spin rate limitation might not hurt slower swing players. If this is the case, then slower swing players must not be getting a benefit of the slow spin ball.
Secondly, you seem to be saying that slow swing speed players did not benefit from a low spin rate ball like the high swing speed player has.
Yes ,this is exactly what I am saying.
I don't think you can say that as the slow swing speed player was apparently never subjected to the distance diminishing phenomenon the high swing speed player was when using a high spin rate ball.
But the slow swing player is subject to the opposite phenomenon. The slow swing player needs spin to get the lift necessary to maximize his carry.
As the titleist article states, lift is created by backspin, ball speed, or some combination of the two. Slow swingers dont generate the ball speed so spin is a positive in getting the necessary lift to acheive more carry. With the low spin balls, they are stuck with their usual slow ball speed plus they loose spin which gives them lift.
I dont understand why this is such a sticking point for you. After all, you acknowledged as much when you noted that the minimum speed limit might not hurt the slower swinger.
It looks to me like Brent Hutto said high spin rate balls carry farther than low spin rate balls. I believe the opposite to be true, at least for high swing speed players.
Brett said this only in reference to slow speed players. He said that spin hurts the carry for high speed players. I think Brett and I are on the same page here.
In this thread you stated that these low spin rate balls (ProVs) result in some "explosive effect" for high swing speed players. To me this connotes that with a high swing speed player there is some disporportionate distance increase in relation to swing speed increase at some point in a high swing speed player's swing speed. I called the USGA Tech Center and asked them about that and they said they believe that is just not true and the distance result to increased swing speed is bascially linear.
Tom, I have explained again and again what I meant, but apparently I havent been clear so let me try again. Only the best players with the fastest swing speeds (and best matching equipment) can fully take advantage of the new balls. They can swing harder without ballooning the ball, and they can generate the necessary lift through their incredible swing speed. They not only hit the ball farther and straight, but their distance is accomplished mostly through carry.
In contrast the technology is effectively above the slower swingers head. Ballooning was never a problem for them, but with the new ball they dont as much needed lift from the backspin to maximize their carry.
An analogy. Bugatti recently built the new fastest car in the world. One problem is that at very high speeds the car lifts into the air, so before going to top speed the driver must activate a special wing which effectively cuts the lift so the car stays on the ground. Obviously such a wing on normal cars is not only unnecessary, but also slightly inefficient. That is what these low spin balls do, they cut down on lift, allowing the fastest of the fast to function at a level which was impossible before. But they dont help my wife's Passat one bit because too much lift has never been a problem for the chunky Passat.
-
"But the slow swing player is subject to the opposite phenomenon. The slow swing player needs spin to get the lift necessary to maximize his carry.
As the titleist article states, lift is created by backspin, ball speed, or some combination of the two. Slow swingers dont generate the ball speed so spin is a positive in getting the necessary lift to acheive more carry. With the low spin balls, they are stuck with their usual slow ball speed plus they loose spin which gives them lift.
I dont understand why this is such a sticking point for you. After all, you acknowledged as much when you noted that the minimum speed limit might not hurt the slower swinger."
David:
I'll tell you precisely why it's a sticking point with me. It's becaue I believe it is total horseshit and I don't care what that Titleist website says about spin rate, drag, lift, trajectory, carry distance, roll or whatever. There may be some accuracy to what they're saying about aerodynamics but the reality in play is not what they may be implying and apparently what you and a Brent Hutto seem to believe. Just peruse some of the articles listed in that website that explain over and over again why distance should neither be limited nor rolled back. Where do you think Titleist is coming from on this issue anyway? ;)
Furthermore, I played about twenty years of tournament golf and I was one of just a few starting around 1980 who almost always used a two piece solid ball (low spin rate) in competition, even if occasionally I would use a three piece wound ball (Titleist or Slazenger balata) in some conditions (dry conditons). The only two tournament players in the last twenty years around here who were any good who used low spin rate two piece hard balls were me and Mike Rose. We both uese Slazengers for years and we always kidded each other that we were the only ones who did, and interestingly enough our short games were quite different from the rest for obvious reasons.
I have always been a slow swing speed player (actually a remarkably slow swing speed player for the level I played at all those years). I doubt my swing speed was anywhere near 100 mph. And I can tell you from playing both types of balls that I hit those two piece hard balls (low spin rate) higher and definitely no lower and with somewhat more carry distance with every club in the bag than I did those high spin rate three piece balatas (Titleist balatas and Slazenger balatas). Matter of fact the only problem I ever had with the two piece low spin rate hard balls I almost always played is it is basically impossible to keep them down particularly with short irons. So as far as the slow swing speed player goes I wasn't much different than that except obviously I was a whole lot more consistent in my ball striking than the slow swing speed handicap golfer.
So why don't you tell me what you think that was all about? If you feel like telling me I must have been seeing things for twenty years or that I'm not telling the truth----then fine---in that case this discussion on this subject between you and me is over.
Furthemore, if a higher spin rate creates so much lift and a higher trajectory (as the Titleist site you're fond of referring to says) why don't you tell me why it technically is then that the high swing speed players hit high spin rate balls so flat and low for the first 100 yards or so before they launch like a Lear Jet? Seems to me you (and Brent Hutto and perhaps Titleist) have a quite different idea about what trajectory and overall carry distance means than I do.
This (the high spin rate ball hit at a high swing speed) by the way is pretty much the opposite of a maximum carry maximum distance ball flight and the USGA Tech Center for some unknown reason seems to confirm the truth of everything I've just said above. And if both the USGA Tech Center and me are in some way at odds in this evaluation with something in the Titleist website that would not surprise me in the slightest. ;)
-
"After all, you acknowledged as much when you noted that the minimum speed limit might not hurt the slower swinger."
David:
Again, I acknowledged no such thing. What the hell is 'the minimum speed limit'? Is that something in Nascar?
"An analogy. Bugatti recently built the new fastest car in the world. One problem is that at very high speeds the car lifts into the air, so before going to top speed the driver must activate a special wing which effectively cuts the lift so the car stays on the ground. Obviously such a wing on normal cars is not only unnecessary, but also slightly inefficient."
David:
Maybe you should just dispense with your hypothetical graphs and analogies to Bugatti race cars in this discussion on golf balls, swing speeds and distance. Does the latest Bugatti race car you mentioned spin on its horizontal axis in relation to the earth as a golf ball does?
"That is what these low spin balls do, they cut down on lift, allowing the fastest of the fast to function at a level which was impossible before."
No, David, it was not impossible for the fastest of the fast to function at that level before. It was very possible and that's why the Tech Center mentioned that if a Davis Love had hit a two piece hard ball (low spin rate like an old Pinnacle) with the equipment he has today he would hit it about as far as he hits the ProV he uses today.
It has always been very possible for high swing speed players to get the trajectory and carry distance they do today with the low spin rate ProV type ball, they merely chose not to play those old low spin rate two piece balls all those years for a reason (they felt too hard around the green) that has nothing whatsover to do with this subject of distance in the context of high or low spin rate golf balls.
-
"Tom, I have explained again and again what I meant, but apparently I havent been clear so let me try again. Only the best players with the fastest swing speeds (and best matching equipment) can fully take advantage of the new balls. They can swing harder without ballooning the ball, and they can generate the necessary lift through their incredible swing speed. They not only hit the ball farther and straight, but their distance is accomplished mostly through carry."
David:
Yes, you have explained again and again what you meant, and yes, it's true you haven't been all that clear about it sometimes either. But I do know what you are trying to say here and I have known it from the beginning, and over and over again I've both said I neither agree with you nor do I feel you are looking at this entire issue correctly.
In my opinion the slow swing speed player's carry and overall distance with a low spin rate golf ball is commensurate in a proportional sense given his skill level with the carry and overall distance of the high swing speed player with a low spin rate golf ball given his akill level. Obviously, in this swing speed context I mean that a higher swing speed player has proportionately more skill than a low swing speed player.
Futhermore, you are the one who mentioned this "explosive effect" of the high swing speed player at some swing speed of swing speed range over 109 mph. The USGA denies the validity of that. Apparently in the last few pages you've chosen to ignore that. Why is that? Could it be that you're basically incapable of admitting on here that you are wrong about something?
-
TEPaul said
I'll tell you precisely why it's a sticking point with me. It's becaue I believe it is total horseshit and I don't care what that Titleist website says about spin rate, drag, lift, trajectory, carry distance, roll or whatever.
. . .
If you feel like telling me I must have been seeing things for twenty years or that I'm not telling the truth----then fine---in that case this discussion on this subject between you and me is over.
. . .
Maybe you should just dispense with your hypothetical graphs and analogies to Bugatti race cars in this discussion on golf balls, swing speeds and distance. Does the latest Bugatti race car you mentioned spin on its horizontal axis in relation to the earth as a golf ball does?
. . .
Why is that? Could it be that you're basically incapable of admitting on here that you are wrong about something?
Tom,
Reading your three posts and particularly these quoted excerpts, I suspect that I must have hit a nerve with you yet again. I assure you that none of this is personal with me, and I have no intention of making it so. I am merely trying to understand this whole distance issue.
It seems one sticking point is my use of the term "explosive" to describe the benefits the fastest swinger receive from the new low spin balls. I think the term fits, but it is certainly your perogative to disagree with my word choice. But this disagreement is purely semantics and really not worth my bickering over. My points remain whether or not you accept my characterization of the benefits as "explosive."
For the record, I am by no means telling you that you "have been seeing things for twenty years" or that you are lying. Nonetheless, I am sure you understand that yours is but one personal experience and that, given the number of variables involved, it would be unreasonable for us to accept your singular experience as the last word on this complicated subject.
As for admitting when and where I am wrong, I'll be glad to if it will further the discussion. Early in this thread and in the past I have stated my belief that low spinning balls become relatively more efficient at higher swing speeds. You asked the USGA about this and they told you that they found that the distance gain for these balls is linear even at high swing speeds. It looks like I was wrong about this, so I have since been assuming a linear distance progression.
Pardon me if my graph and Bugatti analogy did not help you understand my position. The graph is "hypothetical" in the sense that I do not have exact data for two balls, but the point remains the same, especially when we assume linear distance progressions. You might note that JohnV seperately created ball data using what he felt were plausible assumptions and while the slopes of our lines are slightly different, we essentially come to the same result.
I will gladly address the rest of your points in a civilized and respectful manner and trust that you will do me the same courtesy.
-
"I will gladly address the rest of your points in a civilized and respectful manner and trust that you will do me the same courtesy."
David:
Thanks, but that's OK---I think we've both made all our points and pretty much answered each others points.
Onward and upward to the next subject as long as it's not Moment of Inertia. On that one I have virtually zero idea or opinion. To me it sounds like some kind of momentary pathological lethargy but if the USGA can use that to control or rollback the distance spike somehow, I'm all for it. ;)