News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Architecture and the Golf Ball
« on: November 23, 2009, 08:18:28 AM »
What has been the greater detriment to golf course architecture:

The carry of the modern ball? or
The fact that the modern ball flies straighter?

Mike
Logged
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2009, 08:22:45 AM »
The carry!
Logged

TEPaul

Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2009, 09:35:09 AM »
"The carry!"


I second that. It's still possible and quite common for even the best to hit the new age ball crooked, crookeder and crookedest!, and if they want to dramatically shape its flight to their advantage they can still do that too.
Logged

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2009, 09:45:48 AM »
Quote from: TEPaul on November 23, 2009, 09:35:09 AM
"The carry!"


I second that. It's still possible and quite common for even the best to hit the new age ball crooked, crookeder and crookedest!, and if they want to dramatically shape its flight to their advantage they can still do that too.

After Tiger, are there many that shape the ball both ways to their advantage (other than their normal ball flight, say like "Leaky" Lietze who can slice everything 30 yards but can't hook the ball at all)?

Maybe some, but it seems the combination of driver clubhead design and golf ball design have really made the shot of choice the straight ball.
Logged

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2009, 01:44:15 PM »
It's the ball Bill. Clubhead design does not make the ball go straighter.

Reference: The Right Sticks by Tom Wishon.

"Myth #10 The higher a clubhead's moment of inertia (MOI), the straighter the shot."
pg. 32
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 01:45:55 PM by Garland Bayley »
Logged
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2009, 01:48:37 PM »
Quote from: Garland Bayley on November 23, 2009, 01:44:15 PM
It's the ball Bill. Clubhead design does not make the ball go straighter.

Reference: [/i]The Right Sticks[/i] by Tom Wishon.

"Myth #10 The higher a clubhead's moment of inertia (MOI), the straighter the shot."
pg. 32


I dunno, Garland, those big headed drivers are sure a lot more likely to turn an off center hit into a straight ball than my old persimmon head Hogan driver.  Anything outside the dime-sized sweet spot of that sucker left the tee spinning wildly.  The gear effect was offset by the sidespin.

With the new drivers, although I still don't like any as big as the 460cc jobs, off center hits go much straighter.  I don't think it could be from the ball.

And what's this Wishon guy know, anyway?  ;D
Logged

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2009, 08:31:45 PM »
The ease with which it - as opposed to the balata ball -  can be played in the wind is the third contributory factor.
Logged

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2009, 09:05:57 PM »
Sorry Bill,

Provide references for your conclusions and we'll have a beginning of a discussion.
Otherwise, I'm not buying.
Logged
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2009, 09:17:53 PM »
 8) Garland , you can't be serious.. 


p.s. i have some Wishon irons

Logged
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2009, 09:20:03 PM »
Quote from: Garland Bayley on November 23, 2009, 09:05:57 PM
Sorry Bill,

Provide references for your conclusions and we'll have a beginning of a discussion.
Otherwise, I'm not buying.


Oh yeah?  Thanks but no thanks.  I'm not selling.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 09:23:21 PM by Bill_McBride »
Logged

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2009, 12:52:11 PM »
These are really part and parcel of the same issue.  Becsause the ball flies straighter guys can wail at it harder and thus carry it further. 

I still think that a significant part of the problem is wet courses.  The best palyers hit the ball so high going for all carry that they don't have to worry what happens to the ball after it lands. There is nothing better than seeing a guy who threads the trouble by shaping the shot or playing the contours.  I get no thrill out of watching guys bomb it over trouble then land it saoftly as an angle.  Thats why I rarely watch pro golf these days.

Ciao
Logged
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2009, 01:41:31 PM »
I guess what I was getting at is the fact that the modern architect can neither incentivize (strategic school) or dictate (penal school) the better player to bend the ball to gain an advantage (strategic school) or avoid hazards (penal school).  He can, however always add distance.

Does that make any sense?

Mike
Logged
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2009, 01:58:03 PM »
Yeah, but why can't he put a tree in the way?




I am also a believer in maintenance doing a better job of highlighting the architecture than an architect can and in that respect, rock hard fairways with some slope typically encourage you to work the ball into the hill or down it.
Logged

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2009, 01:59:17 PM »
Quote from: Michael_Hendren on November 24, 2009, 01:41:31 PM
I guess what I was getting at is the fact that the modern architect can neither incentivize (strategic school) or dictate (penal school) the better player to bend the ball to gain an advantage (strategic school) or avoid hazards (penal school).  He can, however always add distance.

Does that make any sense?

Mike

Kind of "why design a dogleg if the ball can't be curved by even the best players"?
Logged

Brent Hutto

Re: Architecture and the Golf Ball
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2009, 01:59:43 PM »
Quote from: Jim Sullivan on November 24, 2009, 01:58:03 PM
Yeah, but why can't he put a tree in the way?

Because trees are bad. Silly boy.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up