[Mike_Clayton]

The last rollback affected pretty much the whole world. South Africa, New Zealand, Australia. Japan. All of south east Asia. Europe. Great Britain.

It didn't affect the U.S. and even if it had literally affected the whole world, there are several hundred percent more golfers now than then. There's more money in the sport, media coverage is significantly larger, social media exists… etc.

I don't care what the game's best players, the top 0.1%, are doing. That's not "golf."

Like I said before:




I fail to understand what more money, more media coverage and social media have to do with rolling back the ball.
And if it didn't affect the US it didn't matter?
The evidence was no one gave up golf because the ball went shorter - the great myth perpetrated by manufacturers and other lobby groups to retain the status quo.
And it's way more than 0.1%

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I fail to understand what more money, more media coverage and social media have to do with rolling back the ball.

I'm illustrating that the world is a different place in a LOT of ways than when the "small ball" was eliminated. If you don't think the advances in technology, social media, etc. play a role here, if you're genuinely keeping it to "just golf" and pretending that there are not far-reaching tendrils, I both admire that and think it mildly naïve.

And if it didn't affect the US it didn't matter?

I didn't say that. I did say WAY more people would be affected by a change now rather than one when you were younger than I am now.

The evidence was no one gave up golf because the ball went shorter - the great myth perpetrated by manufacturers and other lobby groups to retain the status quo.

They're posting here? They've made that argument here?

[Cal Carlisle]

Tour players generally tee the ball much lower than average golfers. This would affect average golfers far more negatively than it would affect PGA Tour players.

Err, most everything affects average golfers more negatively than PGA Tour players, no?

Does the game still need to allow 60 something’s the opportunity to hit it as long as when they were 35?  Is the ball the only culprit or do  fitness and clubs also explain much?

My comment was geared more toward this part of the question . Not so much a problem with 60 year olds wanting to hit like 35 year olds, but younger guys thinking they're Martin Borgmeier. My guess is a 2½" tee isn't going to bother most pros, however, a shorter tee would certainly reduce the insanely gross mishits that occur on courses across the world in hopes of (to your point) recreating the distance they on social media. This extreme length is more an issue of safety whilst playing amongst the philiistines.
[/color]
[/color]Social media loves extremes and it most definitely influences this younger generation of golfers

[Philip Caccamise]

I am skeptical that increased spin would have the effect of reducing drive distance.  Couldn't a high-level player just go with a lower loft driver and find launch conditions closer to ideal?

If players had to go to a lower loft, and presumably a more forward cg driver design, to combat an increase in spin would that not also decrease club forgiveness? Leading to little to no distance difference in perfect strikes, but an increase in error on less than perfect strikes?

An equipment change does not have to directly make the ball fly shorter, it just needs to make it more challenging to consistently try to hit the ball farther.

This is my suggestion as well.


The below data was collected by Lou Stagner from a pool of 5-9 handicaps who swung their driver 97-98 MPH, but the resultant distance loss % is approximately the same.


Essentially you have a 3 golf ball window for an 'optimal' strike (97%+ of max) on distance, which for a PGA Tour level pro means they can swing as hard as they want since the margin of error is so high. Bifurcate the clubs, have touring professionals and top amateurs play with woods modified for LESS forgiveness. Note that all woods need to be addressed, as the rules on COR, etc are less stringent on fairway woods.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Essentially you have a 3 golf ball window for an 'optimal' strike (97%+ of max) on distance, which for a PGA Tour level pro means they can swing as hard as they want since the margin of error is so high. Bifurcate the clubs, have touring professionals and top amateurs play with woods modified for LESS forgiveness. Note that all woods need to be addressed, as the rules on COR, etc are less stringent on fairway woods.

Again, I think y'all vastly over-estimate how badly PGA Tour players mis-hit their drivers.

[Philip Caccamise]

Essentially you have a 3 golf ball window for an 'optimal' strike (97%+ of max) on distance, which for a PGA Tour level pro means they can swing as hard as they want since the margin of error is so high. Bifurcate the clubs, have touring professionals and top amateurs play with woods modified for LESS forgiveness. Note that all woods need to be addressed, as the rules on COR, etc are less stringent on fairway woods.

Again, I think y'all vastly over-estimate how badly PGA Tour players mis-hit their drivers.

So make them pay when they do. They don't now.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So make them pay when they do. They don't now.

So one guy every two weeks who was going to miss the cut anyway just misses by an extra shot? Okay. That'll solve it.

Also, I don't know what a "three golf ball window" is, but… a golf ball is 1.68" in diameter, and you don't have even one golf ball of decent forgiveness. Missing by over 3/4 of an inch is a bad miss… that a Tour player almost never does.

[Sean_A]

I question the popular thinking that equipment changes force courses to be longer (and thus more costly).   If courses stayed the same, average scores might be lower for top players. What’s so bad about that?


Most golfers don’t need to play the full distance anyway and sure as hell don’t need longer courses.  Would more pro rounds in the 50’s be that terrible?

I completely agree with your sentiment. Clubs alter courses because it's human nature. Clubs will always find reasons to mess about. Distance is merely an excuse to do so. However, I am very concerned about long balls going wide. What potential danger is now in play? This is the sort of problem which requires extra land to protect neighbours and golfers. Absent extra land some horrible solutions will be in play. Worse even if courts etc become more involved...which is exactly what I think will happen. Bifurcation is a gentle way to gear things down. I think eventually most people will follow elite rules and thus, if the equipment restrictions on elite players is sufficient, the problem is largely mitigated. This said, if there is bifurcation I hope it is harsh. There can be no doubt as to if distance is controlled. It must be a multi-pronged sharp attack which will definitely seem like overkill, but that is what is needed. The approach to change must be routed in safety and the cost of safety. Other reasons just don't matter much.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Dave/Sean


Add me to those who don't see lengthening of courses as something that needs to happen just to combat low scoring. I also agree with Sean that wide shots are much more of an issue than courses being too short. That's probably more of a problem for the vast majority of golfers rather than the elite players. I also tend to think the biggest issue in players going high, wide and handsome with their shots is not due to the golf ball but the big headed drivers we all now use. If you significantly reduced the size of the driver head to what it was previously then I think you'd go a long way to addressing that particular issue.


Niall 

[Dave Doxey]

I question the popular thinking that equipment changes force courses to be longer (and thus more costly).   If courses stayed the same, average scores might be lower for top players. What’s so bad about that?


Most golfers don’t need to play the full distance anyway and sure as hell don’t need longer courses.  Would more pro rounds in the 50’s be that terrible?

I completely agree with your sentiment. Clubs alter courses because it's human nature. Clubs will always find reasons to mess about. Distance is merely an excuse to do so. However, I am very concerned about long balls going wide. What potential danger is now in play? This is the sort of problem which requires extra land to protect neighbours and golfers. Absent extra land some horrible solutions will be in play. Worse even if courts etc become more involved...which is exactly what I think will happen. Bifurcation is a gentle way to gear things down. I think eventually most people will follow elite rules and thus, if the equipment restrictions on elite players is sufficient, the problem is largely mitigated. This said, if there is bifurcation I hope it is harsh. There can be no doubt as to if distance is controlled. It must be a multi-pronged sharp attack which will definitely seem like overkill, but that is what is needed. The approach to change must be routed in safety and the cost of safety. Other reasons just don't matter much.

Ciao

I can see you point of safety regarding land needed for new courses.  However, lengthening old classic courses does nothing for safety (may make it worse), while spoiling the historic designs.

[Sean_A]

I question the popular thinking that equipment changes force courses to be longer (and thus more costly).   If courses stayed the same, average scores might be lower for top players. What’s so bad about that?


Most golfers don’t need to play the full distance anyway and sure as hell don’t need longer courses.  Would more pro rounds in the 50’s be that terrible?

I completely agree with your sentiment. Clubs alter courses because it's human nature. Clubs will always find reasons to mess about. Distance is merely an excuse to do so. However, I am very concerned about long balls going wide. What potential danger is now in play? This is the sort of problem which requires extra land to protect neighbours and golfers. Absent extra land some horrible solutions will be in play. Worse even if courts etc become more involved...which is exactly what I think will happen. Bifurcation is a gentle way to gear things down. I think eventually most people will follow elite rules and thus, if the equipment restrictions on elite players is sufficient, the problem is largely mitigated. This said, if there is bifurcation I hope it is harsh. There can be no doubt as to if distance is controlled. It must be a multi-pronged sharp attack which will definitely seem like overkill, but that is what is needed. The approach to change must be routed in safety and the cost of safety. Other reasons just don't matter much.

Ciao

I can see you point of safety regarding land needed for new courses.  However, lengthening old classic courses does nothing for safety (may make it worse), while spoiling the historic designs.

I tend to agree. The danger to golfers on older courses is from other holes. More importantly, the danger is heightened for neighbours and nearby roads. I always feel golfers must take some responsibility to look after themselves on a course because they should know idiots are about. The guy driving down the road is in a different position.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

There's a stretch at Leven where I'm perpetually tense, waiting for stray balls to land in my area.......

[Dan_Callahan]

It would be interesting to have a four-day professional tournament where every player used a Professional 90. I'd be curious to see what would happen to average driving distance and the stats for fairway and greens hit.

[Tim Martin]

It would be interesting to have a four-day professional tournament where every player used a Professional 90. I'd be curious to see what would happen to average driving distance and the stats for fairway and greens hit.

Prior generation tour pros were magicians “working” the wound balls. Bubba Watson seems to have the most imagination when it comes to curving the modern golf ball.

[MCirba]

As good a sentence now as when it was uttered by Mike Cirba a few years ago in his interview piece herein with Ran…

“ A game dependent on so much of the earth’s acreage on a shrinking planet with finite resources is inevitably going to be on the wrong side of history and a game where the balls and implements aren’t effectively controlled within certain parameters befitting the challenge is similarly going to become antiquated, ..”

Wow, I said that?


The good news is that I still agree with myself four years later.   

[Niall C]

There's a stretch at Leven where I'm perpetually tense, waiting for stray balls to land in my area.......

Oh I think you're safe now. FBD has moved to Ladybank.


Niall

[Peter Flory]

The frustrating part about this potential fix is that it doesn't go to the root of the problem, it is just a compensation to messily offset the problem (that will still remain).


It would be like allowing more powerful engines in F1 and then putting speedbumps on the track. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Prior generation tour pros were magicians “working” the wound balls. Bubba Watson seems to have the most imagination when it comes to curving the modern golf ball.

Modern players have realized that's generally a "worse" (for scoring, their bank accounts, etc.) way to play.

[Mark Pearce]

Prior generation tour pros were magicians “working” the wound balls. Bubba Watson seems to have the most imagination when it comes to curving the modern golf ball.

Modern players have realized that's generally a "worse" (for scoring, their bank accounts, etc.) way to play.

Doesn't modern equipment (including the ball) make it easier to hit the ball straight (i.e. without curve)?  Hasn't that, to an extent, denuded the game of some of the skill and deprived really good ball-strikers of some of their historic advantage?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Doesn't modern equipment (including the ball) make it easier to hit the ball straight (i.e. without curve)?  Hasn't that, to an extent, denuded the game of some of the skill and deprived really good ball-strikers of some of their historic advantage?

Barely. And even if we were playing with balata, etc. we'd have figured out that playing one shot shape and becoming good at that is generally much better for scoring than trying to "shape" the ball most of the time.

[MCirba]

Eric Barzeski,


You've explained pretty well why you believe this initiative won't achieve the desired effect.


Just curious if there are any type of equipment/technology rollbacks that you'd support or think would work better?   Thanks.

[Jason Topp]

Eric Barzeski,


You've explained pretty well why you believe this initiative won't achieve the desired effect.


Just curious if there are any type of equipment/technology rollbacks that you'd support or think would work better?   Thanks.

Mike - Others can correct me but I think it would be relatively straightforward to reduce the ball speed a particular swing speed achieves.  Right now the ratio is theoretically 1.5 MPH ball speed for each MPH of swing speed.  That could change to 1.35 and the resulting distance would be theoretically go down 10%.  I think that is how restricted flight range balls work now (although I could not confirm that with a five minute Google Search).


Not sure how people would react to such a change.  It would certainly be negative at the start but I wonder whether it would bother anyone after a year of adjustment. 


You can imagine Titleist fighting such a change tooth and nail.  It would potentially disrupt their dominant market position. 


I have given up the ghost on this ever happening. 

[size=78%]  [/size]

[Peter Flory]

When they had Rory hit the vintage drivers, with a modern golf ball, he was carrying the hickory driver about 225 and the Hogan era steel shafted persimmon about 270.  Probably about like what George Bayer was doing with the old balls. 

To summarize how quickly the USGA let things slip, a major was won with a persimmon driver after Tiger Woods' debut at Riviera (and Tiger was playing a TM burner plus).  So, in the career of one player, we went from having something that resembled traditional golf equipment to the bazookas that are now allowed.  The ball followed the drivers. 

Here was Bernhard's bag in the 1992 Masters win:  This is not a significant upgrade from a premier set in the late 1920s... except for the Ping 1 iron and putter.  A ProV wouldn't have made a big difference with these clubs and may have even been sub optimal with too little spin. 


When you watch golf from that era, it's very similar, except off the tee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16phtmtzGPI

Driver size was self limiting back then because of the materials.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just curious if there are any type of equipment/technology rollbacks that you'd support or think would work better?   Thanks.

I haven't studied it a ton as I don't really think it's necessary. I feel I know what wouldn't work very well (increasing ball spin, making the ball lighter, etc.).

If someone gave me a bunch of money to study this, I might look at reducing the ball speed first. Remember, though, decreased ball speed will lead to effectively "straighter" shots, because a ball hit 4° offline that goes 300 yards will be more off-center than a ball that launches 4° offline that goes 270 yards.

[Kalen Braley]

This topic has been hashed and re-hashed, like another one I can think of.

They would only need to change one thing....the dimpling.  Super easy fix...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()