[Mike_Clayton]

We ran test (one many thing 'unscientific' but perhaps it's instructive) with Lucas Herbert (now a top 100 player) a couple of years ago
There were 4 scenarios - new driver and new balls. New driver and old balls - balata. Old driver (persimmon) with new balls and old driver and old balls.
The spin rates respectively were:
2326 (new and new) Carry 289 yards.
3080 (new and old) 272
2968 (old and new 262
4166 (old and old) 244

[Garland Bayley]

We generally criticize someone who criticizes a course withou playing it. If you haven't had significant experience playing balata balls with persimmon woods, are you experienced enough to meaningfully discuss the distance issue between the two eras?

Should I dig up my first set of clubs? They were a matched set of persimmon headed driver, 3W, 5W with the Nicklaus/MacGregor VIP blades. No six-iron as my second cousin lost that one before I purchased the set from my great uncle with my Christmas money.

What age range did you play those clubs? Digging them out now makes no difference, because you don't have balls.

It seems to me that offering trackman data without such data from the previous era is somewhat meaningless.

It's just a matter of aerodynamics, and it's known what would happen if you change the spin rate of a ball.

Go ahead and tell me the fault of your statement above.

[Ken Moum]

We ran test (one many thing 'unscientific' but perhaps it's instructive) with Lucas Herbert (now a top 100 player) a couple of years ago
There were 4 scenarios - new driver and new balls. New driver and old balls - balata. Old driver (persimmon) with new balls and old driver and old balls.
The spin rates respectively were:
2326 (new and new) Carry 289 yards.
3080 (new and old) 272
2968 (old and new 262
4166 (old and old) 244

So you're looking at a 79% difference between the new/new vs. old/old.  Which means Erik is right and Phil is wrong. No surprise there. Phil is smart about a lot of stuff but not so much technology.  FWIW, Bryson would not have been my guess for who said that, because he is pretty smart about stuff like that.  Plus he never played with persimmon and balata, so he'd be unlikely anyway.


This all comes back to me beating my dead horse.


With modern clubs and modern ball construction, NOTHING will change the aerodynamics of the ball in a way that will accomplish this objective as simply and easily as making slightly lighter.


The folks who point to the 1931 experiment to explain why it won't work are simply ignoring the effect of modern clubs and ball construction. Or they're completely ignorant of ballistics, which wouldn't surprise me as they are golfers not ballisticians.


If you wonder how I got to this point, I was an outdoor writer for 23 years and got embroiled in the controversy over lead shot vs. steel shot for waterfowl hunting, and when I dug into the science I realized that what I learned applied to golf balls.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We ran test (one many thing 'unscientific' but perhaps it's instructive)

I would not agree that it was "instructive" as it wasn't at all just a test of spin rates, etc. The balls had degraded (they were old). Your player was not given much time to adjust (he swung as fast or faster than many players that averaged well over 244 with that equipment in the 90s, yet hit it 244). The balls were not using modern aerodynamics.

My point is that if you double the spin rate, the ball doesn't really curve much more, and it doesn't go as short as you think it does. Plug some spin into a launch optimizer sometime - you'll see it doesn't change things as much as you probably think. And… the tour guys (reps, engineers, players, fitters) would reduce that spin pretty quickly.

And Garland, I played the Tour Balata, then the Professional. And even if I hadn't, it doesn't change the facts at play here re: spin.

[JESII]

Ken,


The lighter ball is interesting to me. I just don't think any of the powers that be are seriously thinking about a roll back. In my opinion, ignoring what the Tour guys do is awfully easy so I do that. I watch, but I don't care. It's entertainment. They play a handful of forward tee boxes on almost every course. They play it up when there's the threat of rain. The drop process is geared to make sure they get the most help possible. It's a show.






I understand Steve Kline's concern...and I don't want to ignore it but I just feel 40+ year old mid-amateurs have been getting outdriven ever since they invented the term mid-amateur.


He left out the part that I suspect...that he and his (older) partner probably beat the young bombers.

[Mike_Clayton]

We ran test (one many thing 'unscientific' but perhaps it's instructive)

I would not agree that it was "instructive" as it wasn't at all just a test of spin rates, etc. The balls had degraded (they were old). Your player was not given much time to adjust (he swung as fast or faster than many players that averaged well over 244 with that equipment in the 90s, yet hit it 244). The balls were not using modern aerodynamics.

My point is that if you double the spin rate, the ball doesn't really curve much more, and it doesn't go as short as you think it does. Plug some spin into a launch optimizer sometime - you'll see it doesn't change things as much as you probably think. And… the tour guys (reps, engineers, players, fitters) would reduce that spin pretty quickly.





And Garland, I played the Tour Balata, then the Professional. And even if I hadn't, it doesn't change the facts at play here re: spin.

It was 'instructive' to me in three ways. The heavy shorter club he swung 3- 5mph slower slower.  2/ you had to see it but he was hopeless with the wood. (And it wasn't as if he was playing poorly. He flew to Europe the next day and had a 2nd and 3rd in the 3 subsequent weeks including the British Masters)
3/ Even though the balls were old and 'degraded' he flew one 272 yards.  Not bad?


And whilst he wasn't familiar the club a couple of days later I played with Brady Watt (semi-final of the US Am Matt Fitzpatrick won) and he barely missed a shot with the same club -and he'd hardly ever hit a wooden club.Brady has a more solid swing than Lucas whose swing is more compatible with a more forgiving modern driver.


Not that he couldn't learn - he's obviously really good - but it was 'instructive'


Either way, I don't really care why the ball is going further. There are multitude of reasons - and if Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Norman and Snead were playing now they'd unquestionably be hitting it 315+y.
The point of the article was the effect it has on golf courses and my view it's a detriment to the point of game -  that the hazards are less relevant because good, young players just hit over them and holes envisaged as drives and long irons and now far from that.
At some point the game has to decide is it wants all ladders and no snakes - and surely no one here wants to see the primary 'snake' as 'narrow fairways bordered by long grass'

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At some point the game has to decide

PGA Tour players are not "the game." They're a teeny tiny part of "the game."

[Mike_Clayton]

At some point the game has to decide

PGA Tour players are not "the game." They're a teeny tiny part of "the game."

Absolutely.  I couldn't agree more but it's still a question the 'game' has to resolve - or not. The game includes manufacturers, pros, administration,it's players (most of whom don't care either way as far as I can tell)
Nor is the PGA Tour the only place impacted by the equipment.
Australia, for example, is a small part of the game but with no voice at the table (not the one making the decisions) and many here - low and high markers - care about how our championship courses play for first-class players.


And we've already been through one roll back (1983) with no ill-effects.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

(most of whom don't care either way as far as I can tell)

You've seen very different poll results than I've seen. The vast majority of golfers (and PGA club pros) that I've seen want nothing of the sort. No change, no "rollback."

[Garland Bayley]

...
And Garland, I played the Tour Balata, then the Professional. And even if I hadn't, it doesn't change the facts at play here re: spin.

Except that you make all these assertions about spin without being able so see where the possible flaws in you statements are.

[Sean_A]

They were very different in their approach, one never (almost) won from behind, and the other set a record for runner-up finishes in majors that will never be equaled IMHO.  FWIW, he had 19 while Arnold and Phil had that many combined.  Tiger has had seven.

It's a lot easier to rack up second-place finishes when there are fewer people with a realistic chance to win. Jack played against a heck of a lot more "B" and "C" players. The modern PGA Tour is almost all "A" players.

Given how much easier equipment is to use I happen to think they are not more skilled. They may have more skills - over 60 of them are 15 yards longer than Norman was - (statistically) at his best but that doesn't mean they are more skilled.

And again, differently skilled does not mean less skilled. I happen to think they're more skilled. Y'all are acting like they're mis-hitting their 3Ws all the time.

And this doesn't address the advantages Jack would have today with equipment, course conditions, medical treatment, physical trainers etc. People tend to look at past greats in a bubble of their time, but then say today's players could have easily adapted to the past times.

Sean, it's not like the people Jack was playing against had those advantages. You can look at who a player played against under the same conditions. Jack had benefits many back then didn't, too: he worked with an instructor when most didn't (not often, but some of them never did), he could travel privately when many others were literally driving stop to stop, etc.

And the modern equipment made things tougher for players at the top. It slightly helped those a rung or two below them. Jack made a lot of money because he could hit driver and long irons like nobody else: today more people can hit them like he could. His advantage would be reduced.

I agree that modern equipment makes it more difficult for the better skilled players to shine. But like Tiger, Jack would find ways to win because he was smarter and more skilled than the other players. The one area I think he would suffer is the due to the length of the season. Skipping half the tournaments puts golfers behind the 8 ball these days and adds a ton of pressure for the events he would enter. I don't know how well Jack would have coped playing 10 more events a year. Maybe early burnout?

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

(most of whom don't care either way as far as I can tell)

You've seen very different poll results than I've seen. The vast majority of golfers (and PGA club pros) that I've seen want nothing of the sort. No change, no "rollback."

I'm assuming they are polls of American golfers?
Have you seen any polls from Australia or Britain - from places which went through the previous rollback and where there we no deleterious effects?
And, no one expects turkeys to vote for Christmas.
What do you think the answer to this question would be: Would you support a rollback for first class play and the allowance of a longer ball (by removing current limits) for shorter hitters?
The best thing 'the game' could do would be to make a longer ball for at least 50% of people who play.


I'm always suspicious of polls because the answers are dependent on how the question is asked.

[Jeff Schley]

Agree with Mike that those whose livelihood you are challenging with changes, don't want them (like the turkeys don't vote for Christmas comment btw). Not a surprise and predictable. However, the elite courses that target to host pro events and majors have to keep up with the elite pros abilities to provide a test. It is not sustainable to keep adding length and moving bunkers and that should be in the games interest as a whole.


It is like fuel combustion engines that are being forced via policy to be more efficient, for the betterment of the environment and lowering the fuel demand. Do the car companies like that? Certainly not the elite sports car manufacturers. In golf whatever specs you have the equipment at, the best players will adjust and still be the best players although the order may change. It doesn't make sense to force the best courses to change their footprints continuously at large costs, just for that event that comes once every 10 years to the course. I'm sure Gil Hanse is getting calls from Merion right now asking what can we do to provide a challenge to the best in 2030? Buy more land or make it a par 68?

[Thomas Dai]

It is like fuel combustion engines that are being forced via policy to be more efficient, for the betterment of the environment and lowering the fuel demand. Do the car companies like that?

Nice comparison Jeff.
Golf needs to get its own house in order and do so itself.
My fear is that otherwise outside maybe politically and publicity inclined bodies and the anti-golf brigade will jump on the bandwagon and force golf to change. And maybe not change in a way golf would like.
It only takes an incident or someone akin to Ralph Nader.
Atb


PS - kinda be nice if there are a few scores of 59 or even 58 posted during the next TOC Open. Might really highlight how daft things have become. Sometimes ridicule achieves an outcome otherwise unlikely.

[Sean_A]

Agree with Mike that those whose livelihood you are challenging with changes, don't want them (like the turkeys don't vote for Christmas comment btw). Not a surprise and predictable. However, the elite courses that target to host pro events and majors have to keep up with the elite pros abilities to provide a test. It is not sustainable to keep adding length and moving bunkers and that should be in the games interest as a whole.


It is like fuel combustion engines that are being forced via policy to be more efficient, for the betterment of the environment and lowering the fuel demand. Do the car companies like that? Certainly not the elite sports car manufacturers. In golf whatever specs you have the equipment at, the best players will adjust and still be the best players although the order may change. It doesn't make sense to force the best courses to change their footprints continuously at large costs, just for that event that comes once every 10 years to the course. I'm sure Gil Hanse is getting calls from Merion right now asking what can we do to provide a challenge to the best in 2030? Buy more land or make it a par 68?

It's not ideal, but the rules can move forward without the consent of tours. If this happened (assuming there is a meaningful rollback of 10% or so), I think many people would see the Opens (and I suspect the Masters would jump on board) as the true golf events with tour events being seen as much less important than is already the case. The USGA and R&A don't have the luxury of time anymore. Attitudes are changing toward golf and this would be a great opportunity to make rule changes that can be hailed as environmentally and economically sound. Great PR far beyond the game itself.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

As to how far to rollback or re-calibrate the ball, well how about no shot hit with any club from the current back-tee on the 18th at TOC should be able to carry in still air over Grannie Clark’s Wynd.
It would establish a reference point that could link the equipment debate to the history of the game at its most hallowed playing arena.
It could also be monitored from the Secretary’s office window!
Atb

[Steve Kline]

I understand Steve Kline's concern...and I don't want to ignore it but I just feel 40+ year old mid-amateurs have been getting outdriven ever since they invented the term mid-amateur.


He left out the part that I suspect...that he and his (older) partner probably beat the young bombers.

Initially, my concern was for the mid-ams in my mid-40s age range. But, I've played with so many guys have my age that bomb it, I'm wondering what is going to happen to golf 10-20 years from now when these guys aren't playing professionally and just playing at their clubs.


If no one cares about scores going lower at all levels, then it really isn't a big deal. But, that doesn't seem to be how many clubs react. They don't want anyone playing their course driver-wedge everywhere. Just last night at the bar at my club, the restoration project came up. This younger member said he was really excited about it, but he wanted to know if we were going to make the course harder. He thinks that is better. He is an 11.7 index. So many golfers think a harder course is better and they judge that by how the good players are their course play the club.


Also, I left out the part about us beating them because we didn't.    But, it was only a couple of shots, and it easily could have been a couple of shots the other way. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Except that you make all these assertions about spin without being able so see where the possible flaws in you statements are.

No, I make comments about spin based on the facts. Fact: doubling the spin isn't going to change the spin axis much if at all, so… how much do you think a ball that curves 10 yards at 300 yards with 2000 RPM will curve at 4000 RPM? I don't think it's as much as you think it is. And how long do you think it would take for a team of tour folks to get that down to 2800?

I'm assuming they are polls of American golfers?

Of course, but the UK and Australia have a fraction of the number of American golfers.Anyway, this won't be decided by a poll. And 1983 is a looooong time ago.

The best thing 'the game' could do would be to make a longer ball for at least 50% of people who play.

I disagree with that too.

However, the elite courses that target to host pro events and majors have to keep up with the elite pros abilities to provide a test.

We've been over this all before, so many times. So I'll beg off from the grander argument. I still don't care about the pro game and don't think 0.1% of golf (or less) should dictate "the game." Mike thinks the ball should go farther for most… etc.

[Mike_Clayton]

1983 isn't that long ago and it proved the game moved on just fine even after the ball was rolled back.
And why should this be decided by Americans just because they have more people?


You don't think a ball flying 140 yards instead of 120 would make the game more enjoyable for the many who fly it that far - but you think a ball that flies 310 but rolled back to 290 would make it worse?

[Jeff Schley]

However, the elite courses that target to host pro events and majors have to keep up with the elite pros abilities to provide a test.

We've been over this all before, so many times. So I'll beg off from the grander argument. I still don't care about the pro game and don't think 0.1% of golf (or less) should dictate "the game." Mike thinks the ball should go farther for most… etc.

Erik,
I don't either, but my club and others are continually tinkering with their courses to attract and retain majors. Or even the prospect of hosting them. That is the issue, that without expansion of the holes, it will get torn up by the elite golfers today. If you need XYZ footprint to attract them, here comes the assessments to get there.

[jeffwarne]

(most of whom don't care either way as far as I can tell)

What do you think the answer to this question would be: Would you support a rollback for first class play and the allowance of a longer ball (by removing current limits) for shorter hitters?
The best thing 'the game' could do would be to make a longer ball for at least 50% of people who play.

I've said that for years.
Even started a thread here years ago, stating different length balls would be far cheaper, easier and more social than 6 different tees littered acrss every hole.
Might've been three replies.


Imagine playing a match with your, father, wife and 11 year old son, all from the same tees.(which, with the exception of the women, happened very very often 40 years ago, but this would even be better)


Scale restored,without a bazillion half baked solutions, and one variable-the level of ball "hotness"

[Garland Bayley]

Except that you make all these assertions about spin without being able so see where the possible flaws in you statements are.

No, I make comments about spin based on the facts. Fact: doubling the spin isn't going to change the spin axis much if at all, so… how much do you think a ball that curves 10 yards at 300 yards with 2000 RPM will curve at 4000 RPM? I don't think it's as much as you think it is. And how long do you think it would take for a team of tour folks to get that down to 2800?

The problem is that you can't even discern possible problems with your arguments. A scientist writing a scientific paper must anticipate what criticisms might be made and try to address them. Otherwise, his paper is going to go down in flames when it gets sent for review. If you wish to engage in an intellectual discussion, you have to have an intellect.

[Rob Marshall]

Except that you make all these assertions about spin without being able so see where the possible flaws in you statements are.

No, I make comments about spin based on the facts. Fact: doubling the spin isn't going to change the spin axis much if at all, so… how much do you think a ball that curves 10 yards at 300 yards with 2000 RPM will curve at 4000 RPM? I don't think it's as much as you think it is. And how long do you think it would take for a team of tour folks to get that down to 2800?

I'm assuming they are polls of American golfers?

Of course, but the UK and Australia have a fraction of the number of American golfers.Anyway, this won't be decided by a poll. And 1983 is a looooong time ago.

The best thing 'the game' could do would be to make a longer ball for at least 50% of people who play.

I disagree with that too.

However, the elite courses that target to host pro events and majors have to keep up with the elite pros abilities to provide a test.

We've been over this all before, so many times. So I'll beg off from the grander argument. I still don't care about the pro game and don't think 0.1% of golf (or less) should dictate "the game." Mike thinks the ball should go farther for most… etc.

If doubling the spin from 2000 RPM to 4000 isn’t making much of a difference then it seems like getting fit is a waste of time.

[Garland Bayley]

We ran test (one many thing 'unscientific' but perhaps it's instructive) with Lucas Herbert (now a top 100 player) a couple of years ago
There were 4 scenarios - new driver and new balls. New driver and old balls - balata. Old driver (persimmon) with new balls and old driver and old balls.
The spin rates respectively were:
2326 (new and new) Carry 289 yards.
3080 (new and old) 272
2968 (old and new 262
4166 (old and old) 244

It seems to me that the only instructive thing about this unscientific exercise is that it is so uncontrolled that no conclusions can be drawn from it. Or, perhaps the one conclusion is that the new driver was somewhat optimized for the golfer, but the old driver absolutely was not.

[Mike_Clayton]

We ran test (one many thing 'unscientific' but perhaps it's instructive) with Lucas Herbert (now a top 100 player) a couple of years ago
There were 4 scenarios - new driver and new balls. New driver and old balls - balata. Old driver (persimmon) with new balls and old driver and old balls.
The spin rates respectively were:
2326 (new and new) Carry 289 yards.
3080 (new and old) 272
2968 (old and new 262
4166 (old and old) 244

It seems to me that the only instructive thing about this unscientific exercise is that it is so uncontrolled that no conclusions can be drawn from it. Or, perhaps the one conclusion is that the new driver was somewhat optimized for the golfer, but the old driver absolutely was not.

What was an 'optimised' driver in 1980?
It was a club you found that looked good, felt good and you trusted. Nothing was 'optimised' by today's standards.
It is a really good driver and exactly the type of club he'd have been using.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()