[DMoriarty]

Thrown the game out of balance?? That's you're take on this, not mine.  On the one hand you have a hard low spin distance ball that's been around and LEGAL distance-wise for forty years and a soft ball that's been around and LEGAL distance-wise forever. The manufacturers finally combine two long time LEGAL golf ball characteristics and you think big hitters are now out of balance with average hitters.

Yes, that is what I think.

The fact is that the elite players did not play with the old, hard, low spin balls.  These balls were not yet technologically advanced enough for the elite players to deem them acceptable for use.   Yet you still insist on comparing today's reality with a hypothetical rewrite of the history of golf.  

One could just as easily say that big hitters were limited in relation to the average hitter distance-wise and consequently the average hitter was "out of balance" distance-wise with the big hitter regarding what was actually legal distance-wise for so long.

So then the elite player of 20 or thirty years ago did not hit the ball far enough by the poorer player?  I suppose one could say this, if he did not mind ignoring just about everything we know about the history golf and golf course architecture.  

[TEPaul]

"The main difference between us now is that TomPaul doesnt think it reasonable to call what we have seen in the past 12 years a "distance explosion" because, had the elite players been willing to play a low-spin ball with inferior control and feel, then he could have been hitting it a long ways."

David:

Right, that's the main difference between us now. I think after about a year I've finally gotten you to understand WHY this happened and that this was not some new age ball that went farther than anything before it which is most certainly what you've been implying on here for a long time now.

You said:  

"I do see a very definite distance explosion, but then I'd rather look what the elite players actually used, rather than speculate how far they might have hit it had they had only played an inferior golf ball (in their opinion.)"

That's what I've been doing for years now on here---looking at what elite players ACTUALLY USED, and I've explained for years now WHY they actually USED what they did. As of tonight it appears you were under some misconception of why they used what they did. It appears you've not understood the significance of that until tonight.

Now, let me ask you something since you say things on here like the USGA should thank Geoff Shackelford for pointing out how far the ball goes----here you have a ball, the two piece low spin distance ball that's been around for forty years AND LEGAL distance-wise, and the high spin three piece ball that's been LEGAL forever, and the manufacturers COMBINE those two LEGAL ball characteristics. You seem to be constantly critical of the USGA on distance, so what would you have done if you were them with the potential combination of two completely LEGAL ball characteristics?? And as I've said for years now Frank Thomas warned them about this possibility of the combination of two LEGAL ball characteristics but I'm not sure how comprehensively other that the creation of is "USGA Optimization Test" with perhaps a thought to write new I&B rules and regs.

It's not so easy to criticize them if you're honest about that and try not to always blame people in retrospect, particularly without really knowing what you're talking about.

My solution which I've put on here for at least two years now (which you've probably also completely missed) is for them to think about creating a sixth regulation for the golf ball that would put a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball can legalliy have.

I hope by this point you understand the significance of what that might do.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland:

You are absolutely wrong about that. Apparently David Moriarty was under the impression that elite players in the past did not use low spinning two piece balls because they were not controllable when hit at high swing speeds. That's a pretty big difference from the fact that they didn't use them only because they felt too hard to them around the green which both me and some others on here have been saying for years now on here.
...

I know he said that they were not controllable when hit at high swing speeds. As I wrote above, you and I agree that is nonsense.

...
They never used that old low spinning ball (Pinnacle type) simply because if felt too hard to them around greens. ...

I find the agreement between your statement above and David's statement below.

...
The harder hitting players did not switch until the low spin ball was greatly improved by TECHNOLOGY.   The new low spin ball was much more technolically advanced than the old low spin ball in that the new low spin ball was not only long, but also more controllable on approaches and around greens.  
...

The post that I quoted here did not repeat the nonsensical claim that the elite players could not control the two piece ball with high speed swings, which by the speeds he was quoting would be driver swings.

Therefore, I saw agreement between the two.

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul,  you are completely misrepresenting what I have said in the past.  Apparently you were reading things into what I was saying or you otherwise misunderstood.  You can continue to take shots at me, but my old posts are in the archives.  I'm no expert, but I have understood your position for quite some time now.  Go take a look at my old posts if you don't believe me.  

Right, that's the main difference between us now. I think after about a year I've finally gotten you to understand WHY this happened and that this was not some new age ball that went farther than anything before it which is most certainly what you've been implying on here for a long time now.

It is some "new age ball;" one that goes much further than any ball the elite players were previously willing to use.  

That's what I've been doing for years now on here---looking at what elite players ACTUALLY USED, and I've explained for years now WHY they actually USED what they did. As of tonight it appears you were under some misconception of why they used what they did. It appears you've not understood the significance of that until tonight.

Tom when you insist on comparing how far Davis Love III or anyone else could have hit the old low spin ball (if they thought it a good enough ball to hit,) then you are NOT looking at what they actually used.  

Now, let me ask you something since you say things on here like the USGA should thank Geoff Shackelford for pointing out how far the ball goes----

I did not suggest that they thank Geoff "for pointing out how far the ball goes," but rather that they should listen to Geoff and acknowledge that he was well ahead of them on this distance issue.  He has been telling them they had a serious problem for years, and it is only recently that-- maybe-- they are starting to acknowledge this.  

Here you have a ball, the two piece low spin distance ball that's been around for forty years AND LEGAL distance-wise, and the high spin three piece ball that's been LEGAL forever, and the manufacturers COMBINE those two LEGAL ball characteristics. You seem to be constantly critical of the USGA on distance, so what would you have done if you were them with the potential combination of two completely LEGAL ball characteristics??

I'd have changed the rules, because this new ball goes too far AND is usuable to the elite players.  While I hope they finally reign in this ball, I wish they had a long time ago.  

And as I've said for years now Frank Thomas warned them about this possibility of the combination of two LEGAL ball characteristics but I'm not sure how comprehensively other that the creation of is "USGA Optimization Test" with perhaps a thought to write new I&B rules and regs.

So then it sounds like you agree that the real powers at the USGA competely dropped the ball.  They did not listen to their own tech people (you've said this a number of times) including Frank Thomas, did not listen to some of the game's greats (like Nicklaus,) and did not listen to critics like Geoff, even though apparently all these people saw this problem coming down the pipe long ago.  Why is it again that I shouldn't be critical of this organization?  

It's not so easy to criticize them if you're honest about that and try not to always blame people in retrospect, particularly without really knowing what you're talking about.

It is easy to criticize them because, as apparently everyone agrees, they should have seen this coming and they did not.  Moreover, this is not about blaming people in retrospect, because they have yet to fix the problem.  I will heap praise on them if they can get themselves out of this miss they created for themselves.  

My solution which I've put on here for at least two years now (which you've probably also completely missed) is for them to think about creating a sixth regulation for the golf ball that would put a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball can legalliy have.

I hope by this point you understand the significance of what that might do.

I have my doubts about the potential effectiveness of this approach, because as others have pointed out it may be possible to manipulate the dimples on a high spinning ball to avoid excess lift.  But that is a discussion for another day.  

[TEPaul]

"It is some "new age ball;" one that goes much further than any ball the elite players were previously willing to use."

Yes it is longer than the ball they were previously WILLING to use up until about 10-12 years ago but it is NOT longer than the ball used by the majority of golfers in this world for about the last 40 years.

When the manufacturers for the first time in history finally made a golf ball with the distance characteristics of the two piece hard ball and the soft feel of the three piece soft ball (something that theretofore no one thought possible or probable), both characteristics which were legal for decades on one and forever on the other what do you think the R&A/USGA should've done, informed all big hitters that if they wanted more distance they'd have to settle for a hard ball around the greens?

This would essentially have been telling the manufacturers they would not be allowed to combine two performance characteristics of golf balls that had been legal for decades. I'm sure the R&A/USGA probably could've done that instantly and arbitrarily but somehow that smacks of both inequity and some fairly massive manufacturer lawsuits. When the manufacturers did this with this so-called new age ball (combine distance and feel characteristics) there was absolutely nothing within the R&A/USGA rules and regs on ball construction and performance that said that was not allowed or could be deemed non-conforming. It's important for people like you to understand this and what it meant and means.

Obviously you've been struggling to understand the facts of ball technology and performance and its evolution to this point (I can see you aren't old enough to remember personally different performance characteristics of the spectrum of older golf balls) but I think you probably have a whole lot to learn from here on out about the way the USGA Tech Center and their R&A/USGA I&B rules and regs legally work.

For the USGA Tech Center to tell manufacturers that some new ball is non-conforming they have to show the manufacturers how and why it violates the ODS regulations on distance and performance or construction. The ProV series golf ball violated none of that.

Furthermore to the USGA Tech Center this entire area and it's legalitiy is all based on tests and testing. They have to design their own, make them and basically prove they are providing reliable physical information. 10-12 years ago there obviously were a number of things about golf ball construction and performance that were not known by anyone and that's precisely why the USGA launched into their $10 million ball research study in 2002 which is just being completed now. If you listened to or read "Equipment Standards" committee chairman Jim Vernon's report at the recent USG annual meeting in Atlanta you may get some idea what they plan to do with this ball information next as it relates to new rules and regs for ball performance. And they have asked the manufacturers ten months ago to produce a prototype sampling of distance limited balls (15 and 25 yards rollback apparently from present ODS).

To me people like you act like some spoilt child who don't understand reality but just wanted something RIGHT NOW!

Edwin Land's baby son demanded that of his father many decades ago when Land took a photograph of his son. That got Edwin Land to thinking---hmmmm--is that possible and if so how? That was the beginning of the Polaroid Co. and the instamatic camera. Unfortunately the kid didn't get it instantly, it took Land a few decades to develop it.

The same reality is somewhat true of R&A/USGA ball testing and ball construction and performance rules and regulations that make up the ODS and ball construction and performance standards the manufacturers need to conform to if they want to stay within the R&A/USGA I&B rules and regulations.  

Let's hope they do want to do that in the future or golf and golf architecture probably will be ruined in the future.

 

[TEPaul]

"Tom when you insist on comparing how far Davis Love III or anyone else could have hit the old low spin ball (if they thought it a good enough ball to hit,) then you are NOT looking at what they actually used."

David;

I'm not?? I'm looking at not only precisely WHAT they used but also precisely WHY they used it. On the issue of why they used it you seem to have been somewhat confused until yesterday. And it's no wonder, apparently you aren't old enough to remember the various ramifications of ball performance by various levels of players a few decades ago.    

[Doug Siebert]

That's what I've been telling you for a couple of years. Control around the green has nothing whatsoever to do with distance or a distance comparison which is what we've been discussing here endlessly. The old low spinning two piece ball would've gone app as far as the new age low spinning ProV type. Go back and read again what I've been saying for years and the USGA has confirmed---as it relates to the ball it was the switch that created the distance spike. The elite players switched because the ball feels almost as soft to them around the green as the old high spinning soft balls they used to use.

You've been saying for years that this new ProV type ball has created some recent "explosive effect" over 109. It hasn't. It's no different distance-wise to an elite player than the old low spinning two piece hard ball.

Sorry, but I don't buy this.  I'm not an "elite" player, but I definitely have the swing speed to have gained some easily noticeable benefit from the Pro V1 and V1x.  I've hit it to places on some holes that I had never been prior to the advent of those balls.

Fine, you say, if I had been playing Pinnacle-type two piece balls I would have seen the same thing.  But that's NOT TRUE.  I mostly played balata balls in the early to mid 90s until the Professional came out, but I sometimes played whatever Pinnacle, Top Flight or whatever I might find on days when I was playing poorly and didn't want to lose or ruin expensive balls since at the time being in grad school and just out of it I didn't have a lot of disposable income to waste.

I never noticed much measureable difference in how far I hit those versus how far I hit the balatas.  The might roll a few more yards in the fairway and release a bit on the greens, but if there was any difference in carry distance it wasn't anything remotely to close to what I saw happen when I switched to the Pro V1.

What's more, the Pro V1 cut through the wind in an unbelieveable fashion when hit off a driver, those Top Flights never did anything like that.

I didn't have a 400cc driver in the 90s, so perhaps there is some synergy involved in the ball being designed to be hit by those drivers, etc.  So perhaps with an old-style Pinnacle from 1991 and my modern 400cc driver I'd hit it the same distance as a Pro V1, but I doubt it.  I do know that when I pulled out my old persimmon driver with a steel shaft a few years ago and tested it alongside my 400cc driver using Pro V1s, that on perfectly square hits I hit it the same distance with my persimmon as with my 400cc -- so much further than where I remembered being able to hit my persimmon even with a much more aggressive swing back in the day that I just had to laugh!  The average, of course, was far worse with the persimmon as mishits were so badly punished.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Andy Hughes,

Let me see if I understand you.

You're hitting the ball considerably longer than Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan and Sam Snead, yet, you feel that you haven't benefited from high tech ?   ?

That's an interesting perspective.

Do you feel that you're their equal in ability ?

Or, do you feel that you have considerably less talent then any of those fellows ?

And, if you have considerably less talent, how do you explain your ability to outdrive them ?

[TEPaul]

Doug Seibert:

First of all the point of discusion between me and David Moriarty on this thread was the golf ball, nothing more. I've certainly never said the swithch to the low spin ProV type golf ball by big hitting players was the only factor that contributed to the distance elite players are hitting the ball today, and either is the USGA's Tech Center. There're a number of other factors certainly including increased COR, optimization, lighter materials etc. What I'm telling you about the golf ball is confirmed by the USGA Tech Center but if you think your persimmon driver and a ProV is as long as a new age driver than I guess so be it. That kind of thing Frank Thomas always termed the "magic of the game".

[Andy Hughes]

It sounds like the key, for me anyway, may be some type of fitting to match the best club and ball for me.  Seems reasonable, though the new driver I broke down and bought does feel solid to me (and the wallet is feeling awfully light after buying one driver!).

Mr Gracely, I wish yours was the correct answer  I am the sentimental type and would feel guilty bringing a classic to its knees. But I am not long at the local goat ranch either

George, you raise an interesting point--whether my memory ultimately is accurate and I can't say for sure it is. Maybe I am just remembering my good ones from days gone by and glossing over the rest.  Perhaps there are more good ones now then there used to be--it surely is easy to forget the misses from years ago I guess and recall the distances of the good ones.  Maybe Huck is right--the new one enables me to hit more good ones (though the good ones may be awfully similar to the old good ones) and more good straight ones.

Let me see if I understand you.
You're hitting the ball considerably longer than Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan and Sam Snead, yet, you feel that you haven't benefited from high tech ?  ?
That's an interesting perspective.
Do you feel that you're their equal in ability ?
Or, do you feel that you have considerably less talent then any of those fellows ?
And, if you have considerably less talent, how do you explain your ability to outdrive them ?

Pat, no, you do not understand my question. I am not saying the equipment of today is no different/better than what Snead or Nelson used. I am not comparing myself to them in any way (though I am ready to take all 3 on in a long drive contest at any time ). I am comparing Andy circa 1990 to Andy of today. And in that comparison I am, if memory serves, hitting it about the same length. Granted, I am older--I am 40 now so I do not know how much length it is reasonable to have expected to lose in that time, if any.

[Doug Siebert]

Andy Hughes,

Let me see if I understand you.

You're hitting the ball considerably longer than Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan and Sam Snead, yet, you feel that you haven't benefited from high tech ?   ?

That's an interesting perspective.

Do you feel that you're their equal in ability ?

Or, do you feel that you have considerably less talent then any of those fellows ?

And, if you have considerably less talent, how do you explain your ability to outdrive them ?

Patrick,

While I understand the point you are trying to make, surely there were some less talented golfers who were able to outdrive the greats using the same equipment back in the day, just like there are guys who can outdrive Tiger by 50 yards today (you'll find some of them in the long drive contests)

That doesn't mean they are more skillful, they are just better at one particular aspect of golf -- and one that was less important in Hogan's day than today so I don't doubt the accounts that those guys some power in reserve they could bring out when needed.  I sure don't see any evidence that Tiger leaves ANYTHING in the bag when he pulls his driver, because length off the tee has greater importance today than it used to.

I know I can outdrive plenty of guys who are far better than me.  And just about everyone can say that, even guys who can only drive it 160 can find someone who can beat them by 8 shots who only drives it 140

And I'm glad that's the case, because if golf ever got to the point where length has a 100% correlation with ability, even though I'd be in the top 1% instead of the top 5% or wherever the hell a 6 handicap puts me, I'd quit the game.

[TEPaul]

"I know I can outdrive plenty of guys who are far better than me.  And just about everyone can say that, even guys who can only drive it 160 can find someone who can beat them by 8 shots who only drives it 140

Doug:

The stress in that remark should be on 'just about everyone'. In my entire career I never found anybody better than me I could outdrive. I rarely ever found anyone worse than me I could outdrive either.  

[TEPaul]

"I'd have changed the rules, because this new ball goes too far AND is usuable to the elite players.  While I hope they finally reign in this ball, I wish they had a long time ago."

Right David----that's pretty easy for someone like you to say. For starters, have you any idea what the formal procedure is for changing something like the I&B or ODS rules and regs for golf balls or do you even care about that?   What would you have recommended 10-12 years ago or do you even have any idea about that? Perhaps you would have decreed that no big hitter could use a low spin rate golf ball.  

For instance, are you aware that in the entire history of golf no one has ever actually rolled back the allowable distance a golf ball goes?  

[TEPaul]

"So then it sounds like you agree that the real powers at the USGA competely dropped the ball.  They did not listen to their own tech people (you've said this a number of times) including Frank Thomas, did not listen to some of the game's greats (like Nicklaus,) and did not listen to critics like Geoff, even though apparently all these people saw this problem coming down the pipe long ago.  Why is it again that I shouldn't be critical of this organization?"

I do agree with that and one could certainly say they did if one looks at the recommendations made by someone like Frank Thomas to the Boards going back to around 1990 or even the early 1990s which is basically before the fact of the distance spike. You may've noticed what I've said about that on here for some years (but then again, perhaps you didn't notice ). The same could certainly be said about Jack Nicklaus as he appears to be on record as long as 25 years ago that the regulatory bodies control distance. However, we certainly now know why the Boards of the R&A and USGA did not accept some of Frank's recommendations---ie on a COR limitation. It was pretty much that so much in the way of balls and equipment was already out there which it would've been necessary to declare non-conforming. The decision apparently went with the recommendations of those organization's lawyers and not the Tech Center's.

People like you (or even Geoff) did not warn about a distance incease before the distance spike--you did that many years after the fact. I don't really care who you criticize or how but if you or anyone else is going to be credible and effective in your criticisms it would help to get your facts straight---and in the area of what could be done as well as what happened, and both how and why back then in the first place.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

While I understand the point you are trying to make, surely there were some less talented golfers who were able to outdrive the greats using the same equipment back in the day,

Nobody outdrove Snead.

The equipment he used FORCED the swing to be almost perfect, as mishits had dire consequences.

Snead was a great striker of the golf ball,, but, he didn't average 260 yards on his drives as Andy, an unranked amateur does.

You and others confuse driving the ball on the golf course, where it counts, with driving the ball on a range, where it doesn't count.  Accuracy remains a vital a component of the drive.[/color]

just like there are guys who can outdrive Tiger by 50 yards today (you'll find some of them in the long drive contests)

NO, they can't outdrive Tiger, not by 50 yards and not by 10 yards.

Tiger plays with ONE ball not three or six.
And, Tiger has to go play the next shot from wherever he hit his drive, not merely reload and hit more balls into a football field.  Driving it in PLAY during the course of a round is what driving's all about.

Andy referenced his distance during a round, not at a driving range.[/color]

That doesn't mean they are more skillful, they are just better at one particular aspect of golf -- and one that was less important in Hogan's day than today so I don't doubt the accounts that those guys some power in reserve they could bring out when needed.  I sure don't see any evidence that Tiger leaves ANYTHING in the bag when he pulls his driver, because length off the tee has greater importance today than it used to.

Upon what data or facts do you base your conclusion ?

Why was length off the tee less important in the past ?[/color]

I know I can outdrive plenty of guys who are far better than me.  And just about everyone can say that, even guys who can only drive it 160 can find someone who can beat them by 8 shots who only drives it 140

The reality is:  Guys that are FAR better than you generally outdrive you.  They're not FAR better because they're good bunker players.

I'd say that plus handicaps would qualify as FAR better than a 6 handicap, and as such, I'd like to see how many plus handicaps you can outdrive.  My money's on the plus handicaps.
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat, no, you do not understand my question.

Andy, I understood your question, thoroughly.

I just wanted to put it into context to show you that you've already benefited tremendously from Hi-tech.

The fact that you, a ball beater, can outdrive the GREATS of the game is a tribute to technology, and sadly, not your ability.[/color]

I am not saying the equipment of today is no different/better than what Snead or Nelson used. I am not comparing myself to them in any way (though I am ready to take all 3 on in a long drive contest at any time ).

With them using today's equipment..... you wouldn't stand a chance.[/color]

I am comparing Andy circa 1990 to Andy of today. And in that comparison I am, if memory serves, hitting it about the same length. Granted, I am older--I am 40 now so I do not know how much length it is reasonable to have expected to lose in that time, if any.

I'd imagine that you were more fit at 24 than you are at 40.
You probably have more responsibilities with work and family as well.  Hence, the fact that you haven't lost distance is a tribute to hi-tech.

Your concern should be the next 16 years when you'll be 56.

If there are no further advances in hi-tech it'll be safe to say that your golfing future is behind you. [/color]

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul said:

I don't really care who you criticize or how but if you or anyone else is going to be credible and effective in your criticisms it would help to get your facts straight---and in the area of what could be done as well as what happened, and both how and why back then in the first place.

TomPaul,  I do have my facts straight.  I also understood your Davis Love III with a Pinnacle point long before you started repeating it on this website.   My disagreement with you doesnt involve the facts, but with what they mean and how they are applied.  

For example, you disagree with my characterization of a "distance explosion"  and a growing distance imbalance between elite players and the rest of us.  This despite the fact that elite players hit the ball around 30 yards longer than they did just a dozen years ago. (2005-1993)  This type of distance increase is unprecidented in modern golf.  Distances have increased about as much in the past decade as they did from WWI to the early 1990's.  

Moreover, despite aging 12 years, the big hitters in their physical prime back then have now gotten even longer.  For example, between 1993 to 2005 Davis Love got 33 yards longer.  For another example, despite his constant injuries and advancing age, Freddie Couples is now almost 25 yards longer.  

Instead of dealing head-on with this shocking reality, you repeatedly compare the modern hitters to a hypethetical benchmark:   How far could have Davis Love hit an old low spin distance ball which was otherwise not good enough for him to use?

So I aks again:   Who cares?   At the risk of you again confusing my ambivalence to a lack of understanding, let me tell you again, I certainly dont care because I just dont think it is very relevant.  In other words, your Davis Love III hits a Pinnacle hypothetical does not explain away the distance explosion or the USGA's failure to protect the game.

A few other of my opinions which are solidly based on fact, but again with which you seem to disagree:  
--The old distance balls had little or no impact on the balance of the game because they were not good enough for the elite players to use.  
-- In contrast,  the elite players use the new distance balls and consequently the the game is now out of balance.  

As for the USGA, Tom, I understand and admire your loyalty to them, but long ago your excuses on their behalf began to ring hollow.   This problem has been readily apparent for years and years.  How much longer will we have to wait until they react to a problem even you admit they should have seen coming?

[TEPaul]

"So I aks again:  Who cares?  At the risk of you again confusing my ambivalence to a lack of understanding, let me tell you again, I certainly dont care because I just dont think it is very relevant.  In other words, your Davis Love III hits a Pinnacle hypothetical does not explain away the distance explosion or the USGA's failure to protect the game."

David:

I pretty much agree with what you say in about the first half of your last post.

Who cares? I don't think this discussion on this thread is about or should be about your ambivalence about any of this or what you do or don't care about.

The example of Davis Love being able to hit an old Pinnacle about as far as he hits a ProV today using the equipment he does today was an example of ball technology from the USGA and whatever effect the golf ball and its technologic evolution and use pattern from then to now may have had on the distance increase in the last 10-12 years.

What both I and the USGA said with that example is not supposed to EXPLAIN AWAY the distance increase, it's merely intended to EXPLAIN it. Apparently you don't understand or recognize the difference.

If you want to blame or lay blame with the R&A/USGA due to what you see as a failure on their part in the last decade or so, then fine, that's certainly your perogative. You certainly aren't the only one.

For my part, I'm more interested in the exact facts of what happened and why because I feel, as I think the USGA does too, that that information and how to deal with it is what will be the potential solution to a distance problem in the future.

To me, you just sound like one of those people who wants a solution to the distance problem yesterday or even 10-12 years ago.

[Andy Hughes]

Andy, I understood your question, thoroughly.
I just wanted to put it into context to show you that you've already benefited tremendously from Hi-tech.
The fact that you, a ball beater, can outdrive the GREATS of the game is a tribute to technology, and sadly, not your ability.

Pat, certainly there is no doubt that my game has benefited from technology. I have never meant to imply otherwise.  I am sure I hit my Pings better then I do my 30 year old Staffs (but those Staffs do look sweeter), and equally sure I hit my fancy new Callaway more consistently than any of my old persimmons.
My only real concern/question is why I am not any longer with all the fancy stuff that has come down the pike, while Mr Moriarity points out that Love is 30 yards longer and Couples 25.  They are even older than I, though they have clubs in their hands daily while I maybe do twice a month.

though I am ready to take all 3 on in a long drive contest at any time.
With them using today's equipment..... you wouldn't stand a chance.

What?!?!? I'll bet the mortgage I can beat all 3 of 'em put together!

'd imagine that you were more fit at 24 than you are at 40.
You probably have more responsibilities with work and family as well.  Hence, the fact that you haven't lost distance is a tribute to hi-tech.

This may well be true. Everything you say here is right--and add that I played quite a bit then and almost not at all now.
But this is what makes me wonder--I have the same irons now as then, and I don't feel the length has changed at all. Now, I will definitely concede that I didn't miss nearly as many shots then as now, but the good ones seem about the same. There just aren't as many of them
So maybe these 16 years haven't effected length per se, but consistency?

[DMoriarty]

What both I and the USGA said with that example is not supposed to EXPLAIN AWAY the distance increase, it's merely intended to EXPLAIN it. Apparently you don't understand or recognize the difference.

I do understand the difference.  If the USGA would actually fix the problem then I'd be much more inclined to view the Love with a Pinnacle hypothetical as an explanation rather than an apology, explaining away the USGA's inaction.

For my part, I'm more interested in the exact facts of what happened and why because I feel, as I think the USGA does too, that that information and how to deal with it is what will be the potential solution to a distance problem in the future.

To me, you just sound like one of those people who wants a solution to the distance problem yesterday or even 10-12 years ago.

More precisely, I did want them to fix it long before yesterday, but they missed that opportunity.  Now, I'd be very happy if they fixed it soon, but fear that the longer they wait, the more difficult the fix becomes.  
___________

Andy Hughes, you just might not swing the club fast enough to reap much of a distance dividend.  That'd put you squarely with most of the rest of us.  

[TEPaul]

"I do understand the difference.  If the USGA would actually fix the problem then I'd be much more inclined to view the Love with a Pinnacle hypothetical as an explanation rather than an apology, explaining away the USGA's inaction."

David:

With all due respect to you I really don't think you have the vaguest idea what all it takes to fix this problem that's transpired with this distance increase amongst elite players in the last decade or so. Matter of fact, I'm certain you don't. Obviously you may think you do but that surely doesn't mean you actually do.  Of course that'll never stop you from thinking you do and saying you do but that seems to be the way too many people are with the USGA. They seem to be under the impression they can just call them up and deliver their latest bright idea to them and they will be thanked instantly for some wonderful new solution. That's just not the way it works, that's not even close to reality. There's a lot of legality here and plenty of formal process the USGA must follow and furthermore you don't seem to appreciate that if the USGA is going to come up with new rules and regs to stop this, or reign it in or roll it back they need to design and make the improved tests to prove what's happened here technically and technologically. If they had the luxury of just sitting at their home computers and analyzing some tour stats or whatever like you do then it would be different but that's just not the way it is. If you want to really understand these problems and their potential solutions you should call the USGA and get some information from them on a lot of things to do with I&B, the formal processes used for testing I&B, the formal Notice and Comment process and the process of enactment of new rules and regs. Have you ever even tried to call and attempt to understand any of that?

No, I didn't think so.

[Doug Sobieski]

My only real concern/question is why I am not any longer with all the fancy stuff that has come down the pike, while Mr Moriarity points out that Love is 30 yards longer and Couples 25.  They are even older than I, though they have clubs in their hands daily while I maybe do twice a month.

Andy:

I looked through most of the thread, but didn't see if you've spent any time on a launch monitor. If you haven't, do it as soon as you can. If you are hitting it 260, you definitely have enough clubhead speed to benefit. A couple examples....

- I drove three hours on Saturday up to Ann Arbor with a couple friends to spend two hours with a former assistant of mine on a launch monitor. For me, it was primarily to confirm that I'm still playing with the right driver. Luckily, my current combination still works the best. However, one of the other guys (former golf pro, hits it about the same distance you do) gained 30 yards by changing to a different driver!!! He was one of those guys that thought he needed a stiff shaft, low loft, etc. Boy, was he glad he spent the time!
- The ball is critical. Unfortunately, many people think that the ProV1/ProV1x is a magic pill. For me and my launch conditions, I actually LOSE distance if I go to one of those balls.
- Someone mentioned lessons and lag. I am testimony to the fact that lag is critical!!! I actually am trying to decrease the amount of lag that I have, but I still drive the ball (in yards) almost twice my weight (1.94 times to be exact), based on Saturday's launch monitor data. I am living proof that technique can overcome lack of strength. By all definitions, I'm what you'd call "scrawny" on my best day  
- When I first spent time optimizing my driver, it changed my life!! I not only started hitting it farther than I ever had, I also hit it straighter than I ever had!!

Technology will only benefit you if you apply it correctly!! Just buying stuff of the rack and thinking it will make a difference isn't the right way to go.

Regards,

Doug

[Tony_Muldoon]

That's just not the way it works, that's not even close to reality. There's a lot of legality here and plenty of formal process the USGA must follow and furthermore you don't seem to appreciate that if the USGA is going to come up with new rules and regs to stop this, or reign it in or roll it back they need to design and make the improved tests to prove what's happened here technically and technologically.

Tom as an innocent bystander to this debate I accept your argument that this is a most difficult problem.  However is there any evidence the USGA/R&A recognise it as a problem and actually want to grasp the nettle?  Another Cliché "Where there's a will there's a way". The only thing us innocent bystanders observe is hand wringing and statements of intent to look into this.

If the doom merchants are right (I have a lot of time for this argument) then Golf will slowly die because of the lack of leadership and the problems inherent with trying to get things done by committee.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  This last post of yours is exactly what I mean when I say that you are apologizing for the USGA and explaining away their inaction.   Too many years have passed for these types of excuses to ring true, especially since they still have not substantively acted.   I've asked you before, but you haven't answered:  

Just how long must we wait before criticism of the USGA's failure to act becomes appropriate?

[Brent Hutto]

Just how long must we wait before criticism of the USGA's failure to act becomes appropriate?

That's pretty much my take on the whole situation. I'm not as convinced of the seriousness of "The Distance Problem" as Mr. Moriarty. But I will say this...

If another three years pass and Vijay and Ernie and Tiger are hitting it another 15 yards farther then it will be past time for the USGA to just shut up about distance and admit that there is and will be no meaningful restriction on how far the golf ball flies.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()